Yes, please! Would love to have a dedicated project/cd burning functionality in Sonar.

Can I use all the good Sonar exclusive plugins or ProChannel Modules in any 3rd party mastering software like wavelab?
 
No I can't.
 
And this is imo one big reason to use Sonar for mastering too, but better would be to seperate this from the main sequence mix environment. The way how it works in Presonus Studio One is already not a bad approach.
 
+1 for this FR.
 
_Markus

For noobish dweebs like me, the EZ and Izotope stuff makes sense and doesn't require a mortgage. I am not at that point quite yet, but from what I have seen so far, either will fit the bill for me. The stuff I have from them already is perfecto for my needs.  I also have Sound Forge and Audacity so I think I'm pretty well done with that search. Correct me if I'm wrong por favor!

Amine Belkhouche
Yes, please do this. I don't want to buy Wavelab.

Yes, please do this.  I want to sell Wavelab. 
 
I mentioned this in another thread on the main Sonar forum a few months ago that, in order to be implemented in a very useful manner, the mastering view should include a decent set of meters (RTA, loudness, phase, etc.)...IMO, of course.

mudgel
There seems to be two camps here.
1) mastering = the finishing of the material via a number of plugins getting the levels and sound correct
2) mastering = the setting up of the material for release on external media, gaps between tracks and adding metadata.

Sonar does 1) really well with the tools that come with it. For 2) Sonar needs to be supplemented with external programs or have additional features added.

There are two proverbial camps, but realistically, and historically, they are both combined to make the Mastering process. Today, they're many times split-duties between multiple people. In both cases, the idea is to best match the audio quality to the medium it's destined for. If all you need is an .wav file, by exporting from Sonar with some excellent plug-ins to best suit your needs, this is Mastering to .wav. However, if you want to cut an LP, you will split the duties likely to make your audio pristine coming out of Sonar, then goes to your lacquer cutter, and finally the replication plant. The audio finalization processing from Sonar to a transmitted medium, such as a CD-R is the first stage, but then the lacquer-cutting and even as far as making the mother plates can all be considered a collective effort in the Mastering process.
 
I do believe that Mastering has, in some people's minds become just a finalization process from the DAW to any type of medium. Technically, as long as the destination medium is met, such as burning a CD-R for CD replication or .mp3 upload, then Mastering was completed in Sonar. So, it can be called a Mastering tool in that regard. That falls into camp 1. But for practically any other medium additional Mastering work must be done, and camp 2 is added, but doesn't replace camp 1, IMO.

brconflict
I've mentioned before something about having a screenset [M] that sets up Sonar for Mastering, which brings up metering tools, and sort of changes the landscape to be more workflow conducive to a typical Mastering workflow, even one that can consider including external hardware.
 
What I didn't previously consider is, when you switch to the Mastering screenset, you can choose between Stems and Stereo (or eventually, Surround) to display your Master fader output or all your busses. There you could perhaps "bring-in" or process/export the audio from the Project in these two ways, so that you can also edit heads and tails, or run some analytical plug-in tools against the audio before printing or rendering. When I say, "Bring-In" I mean that, even though you switch to the [M] screenset, Sonar still has to process the audio as it would be played in the project itself. Trying to play back literally every track mixed down in Sonar to this screenset may not always be ideal. It may be best to use this as a separate Mastering tool, where you Import the audio out of the project and into this screenset, separately to save CPU and other resources while Mastering (especially since Mastering may use some real CPU hogging plug-ins!)
 
More, In the normal Export dialogue, we could see a check-box for: "Open in [M] Mastering Suite after export".
 
All of this opens doors to using Sonar for Mastering, and, in some cases strictly for Mastering, if the software workflow is good enough. If the Mastering screenset workflow is different from what Sonar uses natively, then it can be quite different in many ways, however, still included in Sonar and still integrated in ways we haven't considered. Throw in DDP, Master report sheets, CD-R track and sub-track markers, etc. and good metering and we could possibly see the possible end of a certain other staple in the Home Studio market. To add, being able to "build" a final Master, as you can with Montages in Wavelab, is a very welcome thing for artists who want their music seamless from track to track. 

This would make a very nice implementation to an already great DAW. I do not know if it would be easy or not.
I would love to have a separate mastering (with m, not M) feature set. Well written.
+1

There are not too many tools necessary for Sonar to be able to fully Master. From an audio perspective the tools are there whether via Cakewalk or 3rd party plugins. All we need is the access to tools and processes to enable the appropriate setup of the finalised audio.

As brconflict has mentioned a Screenset (M) for mastering that enable all the necessary features to complete the mastering process.

Perhaps an audio export preset (derived from the selection of mastering parameters from a dialog). that when selected processes the audio, opens it up back up in Sonar with the requisite Screenset open and the stereo audio tracks loaded.

At the moment for finalising and mastering audio I bounce the project to a stereo track which I then pass to Sound Forge 11 via tools copy, do all the work in Sound Forge. When complete the audio is exported from Sound Forge with the original pre-masters remaining within Sonar running in parallel to the project. Of course this works best when a project comprises a single piece of music/song. For multiple songs for album release a different work flow exists to duplicate the processes for each individual piece eventually bringing them together for finalising preproduction.

a Screenset for mastering would be greatt! +5

I LOVE the suggestion to incorporate mastering similar to Studio One! The only real caveat I can see in the idea would be that maybe we would need a "sub freeze"  pre master feature so that all cpu horsepower could be directed to the mastering features which are sometimes fairly intensive on a cpu.

Starise
I LOVE the suggestion to incorporate mastering similar to Studio One! The only real caveat I can see in the idea would be that maybe we would need a "sub freeze"  pre master feature to that all cpu horsepower could be directed to the mastering features which are sometimes fairly intensive on a cpu.

Yes, this would be an Export function. You could possibly Export-to-Master, which would change the screenset to [m] and stage the 2-track audio, for example. Or, when switching the screenset to [m], you see only your busses. You may not need to freeze anything (just yet), unless you want to simply free up resources. I would need a Global freeze, which we've asked for before as well.