Audition 4 (CS 5.5) was rewritten from the ground up and contained only audio ability. MIDI is gone completely, and not sure if it ever came back? I do not consider that (my) version a DAW, but the wave processing is nice (I actually run it in 32 bit MME mode through my Realtek most often).

I still think of Audition as an editor...to me the multitrack elements are more like Wavelab's Montage feature. But yes, it does have some very nice processing options, including restoration. I wrote two "Classroom in a Book" projects for Audition before it went to the subscription (not membership, LOL) model.

+1 to all of the above. Back in the day, when I was naive about what DAWs actually do, I thought mastering was the exclusive feature within Sonar... It practically has everything else.
But even better would be working with companies like Izotope or Waves or D16. A thought that came to my mind was getting Radix, who has an awesome drum limiter on the market and being able to master/mix with AD2, etc.. right after removing the gift wrap within Sonar? Sounds awesome, or any other of the above mentioned products. Especially, if it came with any of their mastering bundles.
It's not like having all the tools in a Sonar box is going to have others wondering how they are gonna eat. But it would be an awesome feature. It's all about evolving a great product in my opinion. Simular to using a Waves vocal plugin on your synths... wasn't made for it originally but an innovative idea down the road of sound effects and creativity... what would be any different if the innovation is within the Sonar itself? It really isn't anything new besides... Samplitude is doing so, as well as others.
Those that have a workflow consisting of Sonar and using other software products won't change thieir spots. And if comparing your sound in other software is the maxim, why can't one compare masters?
If Akai can put together an Audio Production hard drive comprising of various audio VSTs from different companies, why would Sonar having a mastering suite comprised of various companies be any more odd? Besides, Sonar does that now with Melodyne, etc. and the Bakers are still cooking up goodies month to month.
Again, +1, put it in a package and I know I'd be buying it.

When I "m"aster stuff it's done in Sonar, finalized in SF.
If it's going to be "M"astered, I skip SF and create stem & mixes (no fx/fx) with full documentation.

The last 2 cds I did, I was able to sit in on the Mastering session (on client's dime).
Yaa, I took notes 

OT: Speaking of rough mixes...
Waaay back in the day - late 80's -1989, I went to a buds mix session.
The house did the pre-prod for Extreme's Pornograffiti.
We heard mixes of 4 songs: Get The Funk Out, Money, Decadence Dance and More Than Words.
When we heard More Than Words, we knew, without question, they would hit "the big time".
 
 
They did. 
  

alewgro
Why do people use other products like Studio One for mastering?  I am new to mastering so I am trying to learn.  Why do people export their songs into another app? 

In addition to just using a different environment for mastering, some people like the way another DAW approaches mastering.  I have been using Studio One for a while (well, for the few years since it arrived) because what it calls the Project page is a very well thought-out mastering environment.  Too many things to list here, so if you want to see whether Sonar is the environment you want or something helps the mastering work flow better, check out some of the online videos about Studio One's Project Page.  
 
Note:  I don't work for Presonus but have a good consumer working relationship with them,  and they are not only bringing new ideas to the table, their work is helping other DAW creators "up their game".
 
Good luck,
 
Steve

It's all about what software fits your personal way of working. I've used Wave Lab since the beginning of my PC computer experience with recording. I continued to use Hardware for recording and Wave Lab just to master. So I find it hard to change my work habits. 
For $ 100 Wave Lab Elements does all I need. If I was a pro studio I'd spend the money for the full version and Isotope. 

I do some mastering, some as part of an entire record/mix/master workflow, and sometimes people bring me finished mixes.  I used to use Sound Forge, but the last couple years I've been using Sonar.
 
Recently for a long-term project the artist opted to using a local (high priced) mastering engineer, and I got to sit in on several sessions.  He uses Studio One for his mastering platform, and I liked the workflow that I observed.
 
The main difference from what I had been doing in Sonar for mastering was having all the tracks up at once, making it very easy to compare and A/B different tracks, which is important if you are working toward having a cohesive sound for all tracks involved.
 
I modified my mastering template to reflect what I saw in Studio One as best as I could with Sonar, and this is what I use now:

 
Each track is a clip, and processing for each clip is done in its effects bin.  I have Waveform preview set on in the master bus, which gives me a real time visual of each track's processing.  At the end I copy each clip to the windows clipboard and paste it into an "export" project to facilitate exporting to separate files.
 
This works pretty well, but there are a few ways it could be better, namely:
 
1. Easier access to each clip's effects bin, maybe a permanent pane in the inspector area that always show the selected clip's effects.
2. An "Export Clip" option that would export the audio in just the selected clip.
3. Better built-in metering for the master bus, along the lines of the more complete metering plugins currently available.
 
I don't really desire more "mastering" plugins to be added to the Sonar package, as the ones already present plus the third party plugs I have are more than sufficient.
 

Nice, that looks like a cool way to set it up for the purpose. Addressing your points - not to say I don't agree these areas could be improved, but just as suggestions for workarounds etc:
 
1. Good point. I guess you could set up screensets to do this - save a screenset with each track's clip FX rack open... I'd be more convinced by this workaround if recalling a screenset were not frequently frustratingly slow...
2. With clips set up the way you have them in that screengrab, wouldn't selecting a clip and then using the Export function (and thus its associated timeline section) do exactly that?
3. Agreed... you've always got the fly-out EQ, but it hardly substitutes for a dedicated analysis plugin. Personally I use Nugen Visualizer and like it a lot... but it would be nice to have a built-in option that rocked and was quickly, easily accessible all the time.

Craig, and all:
 
I am mastering two CD's right now.  Both for classical labels and commercial release.  Here is my workflow and you can see if it aligns with your goals to establish Sonar as a Mastering Environment
 
#1 I typically track in either PT or Sonar (sometimes both simultaneously if it is a live orchestral concert and I only get one pass)
#2 I do all of my (adult) editing in Sonar
#3 I do all of my (also adult) summing in Sonar - render my two buss or stems if I'm going to film as well
#3 I export the 24/48 BWF's into Izotope RX for all final spectral repair work and more precise analysis / edits
#4 I export 24/48 out of Izotope and import those renders into Pro Tools
#5 I do my final processing using Massey and/or Waves (only Massey plugs won't work in Sonar) Measurement, Energy Management / RMS / EQ / Mid-Side / EQ Match, etc
#6 Final renders come out of PT in 24/48 BWF's
#7 Import final renders into Sony CD Architect (BTW steps 3 through 6 done on Mac)
 
While I'm sure there are 'better' ways and arguably more efficient workflows, I like the granular control I have at each step and have never had a single problem with this approach.
 
-D

It wasn't until I had seen Audition mentioned in a few threads years ago as preferred for mastering that it occurred to me to even try it out. From a "mastering perspective" the primary reason I have shied away from this in SONAR is 1) I want only the final mix to play with and 2) don't want the extra overhead of having the mix present.
 
It is nice to see other's workflows. Having Audition in the Utilities menu in SONAR has been a big benefit for me in that after tracking I use it for NR and normalizing. The other advantage is that SONAR passes Audition a 32-bit float file without any "export" required. After NR and normalization, can simply "save" and exit, and SONAR automatically detects the change in file and reloads it (after a prompt).
 
When mastering, I will typically:

1. Bounce the entire mix to a new track to embed everything.
2. Launch Audition from the Utilities menu for that clip (passing a 32-bit float to Audition - no "export" required).
3. Save the 32-bit float as a new name to the top-level project folder.
4. Master in Audition and export from there. The other reason I like Audition is effects must be committed before export, so saves hemming and hawing; but also requires presets to be saved "somewhere" which is why I like Ozone 5 (each song gets a preset).
5. I guess in looking at this, that bounced track could be done as easily in SONAR, but I try to avoid the temptation of getting into a remixing cycle. A nice feature request would be if SONAR had a function to save that track, open a new project (Master template?), and automatically load the master bounce from the mixing project.

I have yet to master multiple tracks at once, and although Audition has a "multitrack" feature, I have barely touched it thus far.