while I agree it is licensed and that's why your paying 10 dollars for it, does it really cost that much for the license ? 
it was free in cakewalk pro audio 9 am I right ? I don't see why cakewalk doesn't just include it for free.
when you buy a piece of software for hundreds of dollars, it almost seems demoralizing to pay an extra 10 dollars for an encoder. I still think it should be included for free myself. but that's just my 2 cento's 

Hi. There is always this http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/2677774 I have used it for some years.
All the best.

With all the free MP3 converters available, and the fact that I don't usually compress my own music to MP3, i'm glad that it's an "added option" instead of a bundled product with mandatory purchase.
$10 is $10.  It's a lunch I can buy instead of making, it's 2 sets of guitar strings, it's another album I can purchase, it's another bill my wife can swipe from my wallet (and therefore improve my home life immeasurably)...

The mp3 encoder not being included is kind of an annoyance.  One thing that could ease the pain is if they made it super simple to use LAME.  Like put LAME in whatever folder and Sonar uses it. 

Slugbaby
With all the free MP3 converters available, and the fact that I don't usually compress my own music to MP3, i'm glad that it's an "added option" instead of a bundled product with mandatory purchase.
$10 is $10.  It's a lunch I can buy instead of making, it's 2 sets of guitar strings, it's another album I can purchase, it's another bill my wife can swipe from my wallet (and therefore improve my home life immeasurably)...

You could also say the same about the other software that gets bundled with sonar sinse its included with the price, Multiple copies of Dimension pro, Rapture, addictive drums etc.

chuckebaby
while I agree it is licensed and that's why your paying 10 dollars for it, does it really cost that much for the license ? 
it was free in cakewalk pro audio 9 am I right ? I don't see why cakewalk doesn't just include it for free.
when you buy a piece of software for hundreds of dollars, it almost seems demoralizing to pay an extra 10 dollars for an encoder. I still think it should be included for free myself. but that's just my 2 cento's 

I believe the current license covering patents and codec is something like $6 or 7 in the US if you buy one directly yourself.

If Cakewalk included the license in the product price they'd presumably have to account to Technicolor (previously called Thomson Consumer Electronics) for every copy of Sonar sold in the US and possibly the EU so the correct license fees can be calculated. The whole issue of mp3 licensing is horribly confused, see https://en.wikipedia.org/...ership_and_legislation for more details.

Sycraft
There is a lot of confusion about that since there are free mp3 encoders, and h.264 encoders and so on. What people don't realize is that while the software itself can be freely distributed basically for academic purposes and such but if you use them to actually make and distribute stuff you are legally required to pay a license.

I do not think educational purposes is at all relevant to the claim that MP3 software can be freely distributed. The MP3 encoding process itself is covered by some reasonably broad patents. Unlike a copyright that protects the actual expression of the work, a patent protects the idea behind the process or device, and variations or applications that use that protected process are infringements. The shaky argument that LAME (Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder) distribution depends on is the distinction between creating a protected device, and having a blueprint or method to create such a device. I can own or write and distribute a plan (subject to copyright) that will allow you to build a widget. In fact the whole idea of patent registration is to disclose that information in sufficient detail to allow someone to build your device, or how would they know they were infringing in the first place. Things change, however, if I take the same plan and construct a device that uses the underlying concept. In that case it is the construction of the device that is the infringing action. So the LAME authors generally distribute source code (a plan to build a piece of software) rather than compiled code (the working software itself), and leave it up to you to do the dirty deed inside your computer. Whether that is sufficient abstraction to clear the hurdle is somewhat questionable, but pretty clearly distributing a precompiled LAME encoder or embedding one in software you distribute does infringe any patents used in creating it. Of course if you can set up your server in a jurisdiction that does not recognize or enforce the relevant patents, or otherwise dodge enforcement, you can distribute infringing devices and probably get away with it, just as you can set up a factory in such a place to make infringing widgets, which may nonetheless be confiscated and result in legal action if you try to import it into a jurisdiction that does enforce the patent. It is wise for Cakewalk to license whatever it needs, since companies with far bigger legal budgets have run afoul of the issue.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel-Lucent_v._Microsoft_Corp.
 

That was quite a response to what was admittedly a very minor complaint. I'm glad to see the spirit of open dialogue is alive and well. Incidentally, LAME does work quite well

It is my understanding that the Cakewalk MP3 encoder is actually the Lame Encoder.

microapp
It is my understanding that the Cakewalk MP3 encoder is actually the Lame Encoder.

I doubt that makes any difference. The licensing fee is attached to the process. Whether using LAME or anything else, it's based on the license.
 
However all of this will become moot when the last of the patents run out, and by that time, I suspect we'll be living in a FLAC world anyway. IMHO MP3 is a data compression scheme whose time has come and gone.