Karyn
What "professionals" want/need is reliability, not cute features.   If Sonar is to ever get close to replacing PT in pro studios then the bakers need to concentrate on fixing ALL of the historical bugs, work-arounds and quirkiness of some of the "features" in Sonar.
 
You shouldn't need to be a geek to work a DAW, it should be as simple as possible.

Totally. I've suggested in the past, Sonar X(n) Professional, or, even Enterprise, which would be a version that is modular in the installation, so that you could rip out major features you don't use, such as "touch", which consumes resources on the machine. Or a global Freeze, which would allow you to gain a low-latency armed track w/echo button enabled (minus actual echo).
 
Before X3, I complained that I couldn't trust X2 to be stable beyond a session. Much of this could have been all the bells and whistles (plug-ins) I was using, but it didn't diminish the unfortunate experience I was enduring, hoping CW would fix a lot of bugs or crashes. With X3, it seems some things have been fixed and made more reliable.
 
But I want more. I work mainly in the recording/mixing realm, where MIDI, samples, notation, looping etc. just don't ever enter my room. People have suggested, "Then PT is exactly what you need, my friend." Yeah, I tried it. To make an understatement, you really need training for PT or a lot of intimacy with the user guides, not that you don't have to sift through tons of information in the Sonar Reference Guides to hunt down even simple functions. btw, PT (at the time of this writing) can't use Windows 8. Perhaps they're still testing and fixing.
 
Sonar is obviously trying hard to edge out the competition, but I agree, a separate Pro-train of the product, which is priced around where PT resides, undergoes much more rigorous testing, and features that can be removed to clean it up (strip it down), would be handy. Perhaps its architecture was not built with that in mind.
 
Some expect Gibson will inject a great deal of money or resources into the CW division to move things faster, but I don't get the impression Gibson is able to do that or this venture is relatively new to them. Sorry, Gibson, but that's my impression.
 

I'm real happy with the pattern of activity that has surrounded X3. X4 will be even better. I don't know what there is to complain about at this point. Every other (3) DAW I've bought was just confusing and crash prone, just the opposite of what others were reporting. I'm delighted that Gibson got involved because they seem to be buying all the companies I like.
 
There's nothing that I need added to X4 because I'm still learning the X series. AD2 was a great improvement over session drummer and all the plugs are great. To me the real benefit comes from continuous improvement over time. What would make X4 better for me would be to eliminate anything that qualifies as orphan wear. No need to bundle stuff that's been abandoned for years, it just makes the downloads bigger. Freshen up what can be salvaged and cut the rest. If you have X3 and Komplete anything more is for style points and post count.

Go for it, life is short.

I'm pretty sure Sonar is already the "pro" version and has been for a while, next to products such as "home studio" and "music creator touch". X3 has been great to me since X3c, X2 wasn't terrible. I have good hopes for X4. Looking forward to new features too, things like Cubase's "note expression" or viewing more sends in the console and so on and so forth.

brconflict
What does PT do that Sonar can't yet?

Run on the Macintosh, which is the preferred computer for the film and media industries. Although IIRC the Mac has around 15% of the overall PC market, estimates are that it has at least 50% of the music and media market.
 
I don't have figures on this, but my sense is that Pro Tools' loss of market share has less to do with Cubase, Studio One, Ableton Live, or people migrating to Windows than Logic's price drop and continued evolution.
 
Personally, and again I don't speak for Cakewalk, I think the market Pro Tools serves is shrinking - so there's not a lot of incentive to expend great amounts of resources in pursuing it. Instead, Sonar is on a track of finding the sweet spot between music creation and music production. Perfecting that combination, and combining it with exceptional stability and new ideas, will allow Sonar to pick up new users and continue to increase its presence in the marketplace.

listen
If I was at CHURCH :-) this is when everybody would say AMEN!!!!!!
 

ok.

What is professional? I always equated professional with the fact that it was something you did, and got paid for it. For years I was a professional musician, in my eye, because I got paid to do it. Now I am sadly just a hobbyist. These people that are being talked about that use Pro Tools have tens of thousands invested in there set up, for the most part. Clearly that is not the market, nor should it be, that Sonar is trying to attract. I rather like the fact when someone asks me what daw software I use, and I reply, quite proudly, "Sonar". Makes me feel like I know something they do not. Daw software was developed with the idea that lots of folks would like to record and produce their own, or someone else's music, without having to invest tens of thousands in cash. This is the market for Sonar, because it has the most potential for continued growth, not the group who are so financially committed. Just my thoughts, you can agree or not.

Sanderxpander
I really don't like the distinction pro/amateur very much, let's not focus the discussion too much on that. I just meant to indicate that I'm part of the Dutch "music scene" and all my colleagues and most of my friends are money making musicians or engineers.

PCs have a larger share of the amateur "market" because many people who do music for a hobby have a PC and then want to add recording options to their computer. A lot of warez circulate in that circuit though so I'm not entirely sure how much of a "market" there is.

My response was not intended as a direct response to your reply, it was more of an overall thread reply.
Carry on!

Tracked four classical albums (including one that won an award) in Pro Tools only because that's what was at the studio. Everything after that was done in Sonar.

http://www.sonicfuelstudios.com/
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Michael_Wynn
 
http://mixonline.com/recording/studio_design/sonic_fuel/
 
I hope that helps you get an idea.  That studio looks SWEET.
 
Bob Bone
 

I just quickly found and posted a few links I found on that individual's studio run down and some articles.  The studio seems to advertise Pro Tools, but since he seems to have used Sonar for some projects, I thought perhaps he either brought in hit own computer, or they also have Sonar and it is just not listed.  Many studios have multiple sets of recording software, to be as competitive as possible.
 
I did not pre-screen them for Sonar content - they were just meant to be a starting point for showing that there is info out there on the individual.
 
HOPEFULLY, there are additional links showing/describing his use of Sonar.  (I posted those in the wee hours, and didn't thoroughly go through them first).
 
Bob Bone
 

Here is a great YouTube video of him - he's really talking about the Intel platform, but shows him with a Sonar project open:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi6xVRnSuv0
 
Bob Bone
 

I don't think anyone is saying ProTools is the "only" Pro rig. It's just the Industry Standard, and assumed that every studio should have it or else they're not a real studio. I believe that much is not bunk, but a farce.
 
If I were totally schooled on PT, I probably would love it just as much, but I agree with others who have remarked that PT is typically behind on supporting the latest native hardware and OS (Windows, mostly) versions. Personally, I think the total abandonment of RTAS in light of AAX, another proprietary protocol is also a farce, and quite frankly, anyone who uses plug-ins, such as Waves, finance such firms to develop AAX versions of their plug-ins. So, my WUP $$ and purchase new Waves plug-ins partially went to building AAX versions of Waves plug-ins vs. going solely to Support or developing new, and innovative plug-ins. PT has enough of a stranglehold on the industry that plug-in makers feel the need to develop the next enforced trend of PT.
 
Although I've been told that AAX has drastically improved how plug-ins work within the PT framework, there's still, in my mind, no excuse for not opening PT up to VST2/3. I wouldn't have a problem with other DAW's supporting AAX, but as you can see, Avid has a tendency to simply abandon a protocol, such as RTAS with the most crude and baffling backward-support of RTAS (which is: Install PT10).
 
At least Sonar is willing to embrace newer plug-in versions with backward compatibility. That was a sell for me away from PT, not to mention PT is definitely not intuitive. I need training or manuals to use PT.