I recently purchased a Nektar Impact LX61 which was the only keyboard controller short of the A500/800 that advertizes Sonar integration. The stock mapping is fairly good with control of the transport and mixer (w/ WAI bank switching.)  It should be possible to use one of the "user programs" to map the ProChannel to the surface, so I am reasonably satisfied with this setup, although there are some glitches with the controller's ability to navigate through the synth rack.  While I appreciate Nektar's providing Sonar support, their flagship Panorama line does not integrate with Sonar.
 
Prior to the Impact Keyboard, I purchased (and returned) a QCON Pro which is a Mackie Control knockoff.  It did not work well with sonar but it did work well with Samplitude.  However it is my observation that it is relatively difficult/impossible to intelligently map a MCU to instruments and FX, even if the DAW provides this capability.  I believe the Mackie Control is "dead" technology.  It gives you flying faders, but the faders, bank switching, arm/solo/mute is about the only part of it that works well. 
 
I also investigated the Novation SL61 Mkii which touts Sonar integration.  This may be the best option for control of sonar plugins, but there has been alot of Automap "hate" reviews.  I'm not sure how much better it is than using ACT, although it does give you a visual of some controller parameters.  However, this is a five year old controller, and I'm not sure I want to get on board with legacy technology that gives many people fits.  The newer Novation "In Control" protocol does not integrate with SONAR. 
 
So the current situation with regards to control surface integration with Sonar looks bleak.  The Impact LX61 and A500 are budget controllers with only partial integration.  The Mackie Control is legacy technology that does not have a strong Sonar plugin.  The new generation of integrated controllers (Nektar, Novation) are not compatible with Sonar.
 
What does Cakewalk need to do in order to gain compatibility with the current generation of hardware controllers?  It seems to me that the onus for this is on Cakewalk; the hardware makers would advertize compatibility if it was possible.
 
I know that Sonar is the only DAW to provide multi-touch capability, but prior to my control surface journey I tried touch with Sonar and touch does not rival what can be done with even a simple surface.  I think the ultimate problem with touch is that the finger blocks the parameter being adjusted and unless every plugin UI is develped for touch, it will be more hassle than its worth.
  
 
 
 

200bpm
What does Cakewalk need to do in order to gain compatibility with the current generation of hardware controllers?  It seems to me that the onus for this is on Cakewalk; the hardware makers would advertize compatibility if it was possible.

I disagree on that part. It IS possible. CW has published the source, and it is working. Up to now, I have seen only one working mod (apart from my own). Small number of customers can not attract hardware makers. As you have mentioned, Nektar and Novation had Sonar support. Most probably they do not provide it for new/powerful devices because of collected statistics.

Well, if you think about it they tried several options. First they did ACT, then they made their own surface (which, IMHO, was too much...and thus too expensive). Then they turned over the source code and encouraged users to build something...which they did but not really to great success.
 
I suspect next is to dig deeper into touch and leave this control surface nonsense behind. Besides, I've tried so many of them and keep ditching them.
 

azslow3

200bpm
What does Cakewalk need to do in order to gain compatibility with the current generation of hardware controllers?  It seems to me that the onus for this is on Cakewalk; the hardware makers would advertize compatibility if it was possible.

I disagree on that part. It IS possible. CW has published the source, and it is working. Up to now, I have seen only one working mod (apart from my own). Small number of customers can not attract hardware makers. As you have mentioned, Nektar and Novation had Sonar support. Most probably they do not provide it for new/powerful devices because of collected statistics.

Is Sonar really that small of a market share?   With the QCON they even implemented a Samplitude profile, which I always thought less significant than Sonar.   
 
I feel like I jumped from a sinking ship to one taking on water.
 

...wicked
Well, if you think about it they tried several options. First they did ACT, then they made their own surface (which, IMHO, was too much...and thus too expensive). Then they turned over the source code and encouraged users to build something...which they did but not really to great success.
 
I suspect next is to dig deeper into touch and leave this control surface nonsense behind. Besides, I've tried so many of them and keep ditching them.
 

I agree they need to push touch hard, but it will take innovation, not just making the existing UI touch capable.

I have a VS-700 which I really like; however, since Cakewalk and Roland parted company, that is the end of the line for that hardware series.
 
Tascam is a huge manufacturer of consoles and mixers, and was at the forefront of development when small to medium format recorders and mixers made their debut.  Tascam was always strong in both pro and semi-pro areas.
 
I would like to think that Tascam will be offering a Sonar-compatible (or even Sonar-dedicated) console soon.  My fear is people will become too enamored of touch screens and will abandon hardware development.
 
Touch is cool, and can be easily updated and customized; but I do not find the ergonomics equal to hardware yet.  That said, if someone could develop a touch console in the right position and configuation as an add-on to a vertical monitor, I might think about it.
 
PS Semi-OCD people like me hate touch because we feel like we have to clean the screen every five minutes!

...wicked
Then they turned over the source code and encouraged users to build something...which they did but not really to great success.

I am curious what success have you expected. If you mean "ultimate solution for all surfaces", it is not ready yet (but it is not far away). For all simple controllers, Generic surface and/or ACT map can do a lot and my own plug-in can do even more (already now).
 

konradh
I would like to think that Tascam will be offering a Sonar-compatible (or even Sonar-dedicated) console soon.  My fear is people will become too enamored of touch screens and will abandon hardware development.

I think many people do not completely understand that Control Surfaces compatibility/usability with a DAW has close to nothing to do with hardware. A Control Surface is just a sensor which transfer current value/move direction/touching as a number (at most with 14bit resolution), LEDs/displays which light/blick once receive specific code and sometimes motors. Unlike digital mixers/multitrack recorders/etc, there is absolutely no "smartness" is that functionality. Everything is done in software.
 
A small example: if you press "Play" button on CS, it just send "Note X pressed" (there are exceptions, but only in case the surface was supposed to work also as a standalone MIDI controller). Some surfaces will not even light "Play" LED on that button press. For the surface, there is absolutely no difference between "Mute", "Play" or "Turn On HPF in EQ".
 
What I mean, to get the feeling "this CS is good for DAW X" someone has to write "smart" software which transfer simple signals to complicated DAW X actions and/or combinations of actions. In other words, the hardware CS is equally good/bad for any DAW. What we see is the difference in drivers quality/functionality.
 

For those who have not found the time to read what "smartness" HUI (and other such) protocols have...
 
It is almost "copyright protection" only: "I know I can move my fader 1 once I get PitchBend signal on MIDI channel 1 (the signal itself is standard). But wait... I am build by great company, I will only do that in case other side show respect! So I will wait till you say me (not really) secret "password". And do not forget to say me 'Please...' every second".
 
The only other "smartness" is specific way to receive text (no standard for that).
 
Major complains which could be found on this forum about "not working" compatible devices comes from the fact they have a bit different "password" or you should say "please" more often. The rest is about not existence of some controls or "wrong" labels on them.
 
Who really cares, does not required any "3 hours diplomatic protocol" to start working. TouchDAW for example.
 
For me, CS manufacturers just want too much for less then 10 cheapest mouses (each mouse has at least 2 buttons, perfect for endless encoder scroll wheel and sufficient electronic to transfer the signals, so 10 mouses have everything needed for 10 "endless encoders" + 20 buttons surface. They also have 10 LEDs). No "low noise" pres, no "not scratching" sliders, no DSP and just 31kHZ digital frequency.

azslow3

200bpm
What does Cakewalk need to do in order to gain compatibility with the current generation of hardware controllers?  It seems to me that the onus for this is on Cakewalk; the hardware makers would advertize compatibility if it was possible.

I disagree on that part. It IS possible. CW has published the source, and it is working. Up to now, I have seen only one working mod (apart from my own). Small number of customers can not attract hardware makers

That's the plan - you do it!

lawp

azslow3

200bpm
What does Cakewalk need to do in order to gain compatibility with the current generation of hardware controllers?  It seems to me that the onus for this is on Cakewalk; the hardware makers would advertize compatibility if it was possible.

I disagree on that part. It IS possible. CW has published the source, and it is working. Up to now, I have seen only one working mod (apart from my own). Small number of customers can not attract hardware makers

That's the plan - you do it!

Yes, that is the plan
I have just prepared new version for tests, already tested "Jogging with Scrubbing" using normal (not endless) encoder. If that works in TouchDAW as it should, I am again one step closer to the goal...