jeremy@cominginsecond.com
I tried Studio One, and there were some things I liked about it. I even like the Studio One look just a tiny bit more o, even though I shelled out the cash for a Studio One crossgrade in December, I won't be using it all that much I don't think. Just not worth it now that Cakewalk is a viable, supported DAW. 

You are not alone, the truth is, why would anyone go through the pain of  learning to do something on another platform if they can already do it better and faster on an existing Platform?

No self inflicted wounds. 

I jumped to Cubase and it definitely has some advantages for things I do.  Scoring to Picture and pitch correcting multiple tracks are things I will do in Cubase, but for ease of composing I go with CbB.  I might (and have done a couple of times) score to picture in Cake then switch it over to Cubase once new versions of the Picture comes my way.  Cubase handles tempos and editing to pic much better.   The mixes sound exactly the same in either program. CbB mixes down quicker and OMFs  are better so far.  Cubase can load sections and tracks from other files in a real cool way
 
...but I still prefer to work in Cakewalk.

BobF

GjB
Cakewalk by BandLab.
If people don't like it or use it - then wtf are they doing here?
(I don't hang around in the Mac forums and say that I prefer Windows.)

I switched to Studio One / Reaper a year and a half ago.  I'm still here because I've been here since late '03.  I have since developed respect for many here.  Those just happen to be the same folks that are open-minded and appreciative of opinions from different perspectives.
 
I've never owned a Mac.  However, if I had been a Mac user for many years prior to switching to Windows, and had I participated in a Mac-centric online forum for those years, then, yeah, I would be there telling the remaining Mac users how much I prefer Windows - WHEN THEY ASK.  You know, like the OP of this thread ASKED for this kind of input.
 
C'mon, closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "LA-LA-LA-LA ..." isn't going to make CxB any better of a fit for everybody.

Ha...When Gibson got involved I had bad vibes coming from my Sonar. It was trying to tell me something and I have been with Cakewalk since Home Studio 2004. Spent a lot of money with Cakewalk but more importantly recorded a lot of songs since then within Sonar. So 2 years or so ago I went with Studio One and that is my main DAW today. If I want to work on an older song I'll either stem it or use Sonar...all depends.
 
So that is why I would be just as curious as the OP.   
 
Nothing to get upset about here.

Leadfoot
I hope there wasn't anything that I said that was considered dissing Cakewalk.

Of course not! It's the people who write essays about how Cakewalk is doomed. These are probably the same people who said Gibson wasn't looking for a buyer, and was just going to let Sonar die. Didn't quite turn out that way...don't see any of them saying "ooops," though . But who knows for sure what's going to happen with anything...
 
I do want to comment on one more thing, thought. There seems to be a prevailing opinion that learning another DAW is really difficult if you've been using Sonar for years. I think it's true that learning another DAW to same degree to which you know Sonar or CbB is difficult, but to learn what's different so you can take advantage of what that DAW can do isn't hard at all. For years, with album projects I've exported Sonar tracks, loaded them into a Studio One Song page, then did the mastering in Studio One's Project page because it's so easy to make slight mix tweaks and then re-generate another master. That probably used about 10% of Studio One's capabilities, but it was the 10% I needed that no other program could/can do, and I learned it in a day.
 
As to the cost of additional programs, I can see where it would be a stretch for hobbyists but if music is your gig, the expense is deductible - besides, CbB is free.

The last version of SONAR was 15 years ago; the only reason I have an account here is because I snagged a free copy of CA-2A a couple of years back. Turned out to be fortuitous; now it shows up as a ProChannel module!
 
One thing that puzzles me when browsing this forum is seeing the attitude that switching to a free program vs. continuing to use an old copy of an orphaned program would somehow be doing the free program a favor.
 
It seems that:
 
1. The company that sold the old program made contracts with the users which said that they would keep improving and selling the program forever and then broke the contracts.
 
2. Another company came along and bought the technology (likely for peanuts) and started giving away a program that works just like the old one, except better. Every month, the new company has been releasing versions that work slightly better. They hope to eventually get people making content with the program to upload to their music-based social media platform.
 
3. To some users of the old program this behavior is suspect and not "transparent." The new owners of the technology must be up to no good and they will not give their stamp of approval to this new program until they see a "road map."
 
Well, anyway, hey, I'm using Cakewalk by BandLab and I think it's just great! I have it installed on three computers. Although what I am working with is supposedly a "stripped down" version, I exported some existing projects as stems from Mixcraft and deliberately stuck to ProChannel modules as much as possible, and not only did I get a better-sounding mix, getting that mix happened more quickly.
 
There are some things I miss, like the drag-and-drop simplicity of setting up submixes (and nested submixes and submixes=track folders) in Mixcraft, but Cakewalk's Console annihilates Mixcraft's Fisher-Price Mixer.

AudioiconCakewalk/Sonar has come a long, long way but I often feel as if Cakewalk/Sonar is like a great musician without a hit record. Like an NBA star on a bad team. 

BandLab appears to have good intentions but I do not see industry dominance and or proliferation of Sonar happening soon, and Sonar will always be the tools for Project Musicians and music enthusiasts which is not a bad thing but by staying at this level, there is always a risk of changes that have not served this system well and the potential for abandonment. 

Music production today is not as simple as it seem and what I have experienced, depending on your setup, most artist such as myself will spend more time fixing issues and attempting to make things work, then actually recording music, and in today's complexity, integration is everything.

Yeah, some great speech here. What's interesting, I'm absolutely sure a good producer is able to do big hits in Cakewalk, that's no question, but I'm yet to hear about them using Cakewalk. It's something Cakewalk is lacking in it's marketing or I'm missing something (I know the vast majority is working on Mac, that's one reason).

Euthymia
3. To some users of the old program this behavior is suspect and not "transparent." The new owners of the technology must be up to no good and they will not give their stamp of approval to this new program until they see a "road map."

It may partly be a cultural thing. It seems a lot of American businesses are oriented toward the next quarter's bottom line. I could be wrong, but it seems obvious what the strategy of BandLab's parent company is. Not everything has to be a profit center. Sometimes an extremely cost-effective marketing expense is far more valuable long-term.
 
Given that several entities have tried to make Cakewalk a success using conventional thinking yet failed, perhaps unconventional thinking will turn out to be the solution. 

While Gibson was an old company and they went broke,
Bandlab is a very new company,
and Meng is hardly a poor beggar on the streets,
especially if you know his family history.

Why do I bring this up? Because if people knew some very basic facts,
they'd chill out and stop panicking about Cakewalk dying in the future, why?

Let's say you'd love to use Cakewalk for the rest of your life,
but you're worried that Bandlab will pull the plug on it.

Well, even if Meng never made money off Cakewalk,
but wanted to keep it alive as a side project because he likes it,
he could afford to do that, while still making money in other areas.

I say that as the absolute worst case scenario for Cakewalk's future,
but you just wait one year and see how Bandlab develops Cakewalk in that short time!

And here's an article about Bandlab and their business approach:
https://vulcanpost.com/589375/bandlab-what-you-need-to-know/

And some important quotes from Meng from this forum:

meng
New features will absolutely be developed, not just fixes. As I said in my very first post, at BandLab we prefer to under-promise and over-deliver, so I hope we'll continue to bring positive surprises in the future.

The way we operate our group is not like many others, and Cakewalk, like all of our brands, are not isolated projects but integrated ones, which is why our approach is even financially feasible. Our commitment to the world of music as BandLab Technologies extends beyond software and those of you who start to research a little will understand we have many traditional revenue streams within our group and don't just give everything away for free :-)

For those of you who use Cakewalk in a professional context and are looking to whether you should put your time and effort into a platform - you should know that we are committed to all our products and the immense responsibility towards not just the Cakewalk community but the millions who are part of the BandLab community too - we would not dare to take on a project of this nature unless we were confident we would be a good home for it.

Now it sounds a little hard sell, so I'll shut up and get back to working on the product :-)

meng
New features will absolutely be developed, not just fixes. As I said in my very first post, at BandLab we prefer to under-promise and over-deliver, so I hope we'll continue to bring positive surprises in the future.

The way we operate our group is not like many others, and Cakewalk, like all of our brands, are not isolated projects but integrated ones, which is why our approach is even financially feasible. Our commitment to the world of music as BandLab Technologies extends beyond software and those of you who start to research a little will understand we have many traditional revenue streams within our group and don't just give everything away for free :-)

For those of you who use Cakewalk in a professional context and are looking to whether you should put your time and effort into a platform - you should know that we are committed to all our products and the immense responsibility towards not just the Cakewalk community but the millions who are part of the BandLab community too - we would not dare to take on a project of this nature unless we were confident we would be a good home for it.

meng
We're having conversations with a lot of 3rd party companies to get them up to speed, make sure marketing is updated (SONAR -> CbB) and that any internal ways in which they used to detect/provide support & integration hasn't broken as part of the switch to a new application & registry files :-)
 
Sorry for the inconvenience in the meantime, and support staff do take a while to catch up!

 

Cakewalk has a better chance under Bandlab than Gibson.

Tripecac
So what's the consensus now?
 
Stick with Sonar/Bandlab, or jump ship and go with Pro Studio, Cubase, or something else?
 

Both. This whole getting discontinued/bought up by Bandlab process has taught me that when it comes to DAW's, putting all your eggs in one basket is not the best idea. All DAW platforms are proprietary and none of the manufacturers are 100% failproof.
 
No matter what DAW you use, sooner or later there will come a day when it doesn't exist anymore. Therefore I think its best to actively work with at least two different platforms regularly. You never want to be in a position where your DAW no longer works and you now have to start from zero with learning another one.

So I'm still using Sonar but I've also started using Cubase. I haven't switched over to the bandlab version yet and probably won't for a while. If either bandlab or Cubase go away, I'll dig in and go with something else so that I always have at least two platforms to work in.