Doktor Avalanche
Craig isn't the OP and he wasn't really talking about Rapture Pro he was talking about muscle memory and using that as an example. Never mind.

The topic is about pro audio vs sonar/how easy is midi editing in sonar.

You need to visit the cakewalk instruments forum and check out the threads. Besides I hope my answer was useful.

That is exactly right. 
 
The only reason I made a  point about this was I believe the OP has a good and interesting point of view. it deserves discussion.  

For sure the physical editing changed style changed between Audio and Sonar, but I don't know if it got any better, just different.
 
However, that being said, there have been some great additions, such as the intensity of the color scaling with the velocity of the note. That one feature has had a great effect on my work (hopefully for the better). And now the velocity bars match the colors as well, woo-hoo!
 
The ability to see velocities of only selected notes is a big plus for me as well. I don't think that was in Audio?
 
The 3d look is a nice-to-have. Haha, that screen print from the OP, of the 3d-Not Audio screen brings back memories!
 
Still some clunkiness in Sonar that surprisingly have never changed since Audio, like the ponderous amount of work to select tracks, or, in the Screenset model, to KEEP tracks selected.
 
Also, sort of a cheat, but I devised a handful of CAL scripts back in Audio to assist my midi editing. They still run as expected in SPlat, so for that, the different editing models are non-issues. (As long as CAL keeps being my PAL!)
 
I guess, in my case, midi ENTRY (typically from a keyboard--the musical kind) ranks about the same either way, Audio or Sonar (although, Audio was a long time ago, and my memory only is reliable back to---wait, what day is it?). When it comes to midi EDITING, I have to give Splat the edge, there is more informative feedback about the events.

I surmise looking at the ancient Sonar version it looks somewhat familiar to what we got now. Music represented in a 'piano roll' for MIDI: It is blocks of colored boxes in rows and columns.
Somewhat like comparing Microsoft Word of 18 years ago to what we have now.
 
The most important issue for me is, when I am done filling those boxes with musical data.
The audio engine of the ancient past Sonar compared to present day. Unless the OP exports the midi tracks into Sonar Platinum; what's the point. 

John
I'm not sure why you would prefer Pro Audio 9 for MIDI over Sonar Platinum. I have Pro Audio 9. I haven't used it in a very long time. In fact I went to Logic when I was using it looking for a better MIDI editor. These days not having used Logic for almost as long I can say that the new Sonar is superb in editing MIDI. It retains all the useful things that were in Pro Audio while giving a new much easier way of working. The Smart Tool implantation is great and Pro Audio is brain dead in that regard. There is no useful comparison between them.
 
I supposed, each to their own. However, I reject your premise.  

This is one aspect I'm getting used to still.  I don't want to make the comment that 'CWPA9 is better than Platinum', because I don't think so.  I merely have the 'feeling' that I can edit/create MIDI faster in CWPA9.  Perhaps this is just due to me not adjusting to the new interface.  

Anderton
John, you can't discount muscle memory.

I'm starting to think that this is the case for me.  Working in CWPA9 requires no thought.  My hands work and the music comes out.  Sonar Platinum requires thought as I'm still learning what thinks are different.  

In my humble opinion, once you get to know the ins & outs of midi editing in Splat you will never go back.
 
It's really a case of getting to work with the Smart Tool because it is very Smart and you can accomplish mostly everything without having to switch tools.
 
 

To the OP:  for me, a heavy midi editor using PRV and Event List, there are some things faster in Platinum, others things that even as I get it into my muscle memory are still slower than in Sonar 5.    I hated and never stopped hating the X series sonar, so Platinum is rather better than those.

mourningpyre
It's better than previously, but I still use Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 to create all of my MIDIs.  There is just something about the old format being faster and easier to use and I can't quite put my finger on it.  I wanted to appeal to all you guys/gals here for your input.  
 

You too aye.  I have sequenced MIDI files using Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 for the last 16 years.  In my case, It is faster for mouse driven MIDI entry.  Here is  a specific example in Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.  When you are in draw mode in the CPA9 PRV, you simply hold down the mouse button to drag the note to its final location.  With Sonar Platinum, you have to hold the "ALT" key while in draw mode to achieve that convenience note placement method. I don't see this changing any time soon.

I am slowly trying to change my workflow to cater for Sonar's way of doing things and I'm getting there (and Sonar is Awesome).  However, for my bread and butter MIDI files, Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 is my "go to" sequencer for this

A few years ago Theodor Krueger demonstrated how quickly Sonar 4 performed
He would not upgrade to 5 because of the increased need to pay attention to the interface.
He eventually moved to Studio One.
 
I am not happy with the need to constantly be changing to another smart tool for MIDI and audio editing.
(Pressing any control key is changing to another tool.)
 
For audio: In 8.5.3: I can edit clips, transients, and envelopes without changing to another tool via menu or control key. This is efficient.
 
 X+ has too many menus. Everywhere. And the REQUIRED need to memorized too many shortcut keys and the incessant need to look to the keyboard to be assured the wrong key is not pressed erasing my world in one swell foop.
 
The best improvement would be for me to be able to create a tool similar to 8.5.3. But I don't see how that can be possible since the transients, the clips, and the envelopes all exist in their own universes.
 
Take a look at the Sonar vids:
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheodorKrueger/videos
 

I do not believe it is possible to develop a DAW that fits every user's needs and workflow requirements.  One of the most customizable DAWS on the market is Reaper and the biggest complaint about Reaper is that you must spend so much time customizing it to fit your workflow.  That's why users need to demo multiple software offerings and use the one that works best for them, even if the software is several versions old.  There is nothing wrong with using an old version of software as long as it continues to work on the current OS.  The latest and shiniest model may not be the best for every user.
 

YouDontHasToCallMeJohnson
A few years ago Theodor Krueger demonstrated how quickly Sonar 4 performed
He would not upgrade to 5 because of the increased need to pay attention to the interface.
He eventually moved to Studio One.

The reference to Theodor Krueger is a case that reinforces my point.  One of Theodor's YouTube uploads (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMSTuza40Kw) demonstrates a set of very well thought out feature requests that he would like to see in Studio One.  The most interesting thing to note here is that every feature in his request list already exists in the current Sonar product.
 
-- Ron