Wow - I will disagree on VS 700 C usefulness - if you didn't try; it remains useful and one of the best controllers that continues to work with SPLAT.   I guess I am use to it's workflow and have continued to get everything out of it possible until - something better is presented... 
 
It will be interesting to see what Tascam does...

dantarbill
I hope this isn't too much of a hijack, but...
 
I'm seriously considering picking up a Yamaha 01v96i to replace my first generation 01v.  I know it sounds weird, since even the newest version of this board is now seriously long in the tooth...but I've grown very accustomed to the work flow and would like better converters that go to 96k in addition to inserts and 16 simultaneous channels through USB.  96k seems to be the sticking point...since any other more recent boards in this form factor want to now stop at 48k.  (Behringer/Midas threatened to go there, but they have dropped the ball.)
 
Does anyone have experience using the 01v96i as a control surface for SPlat?

I have the 01v96i and with the help of members in this forum and other professionals I know I have configured Splat to work in a way where I can use the 01v96i to mix which was my goal. I will attempt to outline my setup 
1. Setup a template in Sonar that maps input tracks 1-16
2. Setup a template in Sonar that maps output channels back to 01v tracks 1-16
3. On the 01v setup channels 1-16 as input channels pointing to USB channels inputs in SPlat. Each channel should be setup to use D=Direct not Stereo
4. On 01v setup channels 16-32 to receive the output from SPlat which is what you will use to mix if you choose.
***What is confusing about the 01v is that inputs and outputs use the same name so it kept confusing me when I was setting this up. USB1 Input Channel USB Output Channel***
 
Example setup
01v channel 1 is setup to input USB1
Track 1 in Sonar is setup to use input source of USB1 and output source of USB1
In Sonar setup an output channel track that is setup to use USB1 
Back on the 01v track 17 is setup to use input USB1 and use S=Stereo which allows you to hear your track via the main or monitor outputs. 
With this setup you can play the track in sonar but the 01v is controlling the volume. Nothing happens inside of Sonar but I like having the feel of controlling a mix manually.  Now I like this because you can use plugins in Sonar on the out channels and use effects of the 01v when you mix. You get the best of both worlds in my opinion
I hope this helps

The latest Presonus Studiolive 111 are now fully 96k and work with MCU protocol.

The Avid Artist series of control surfaces use the Eucon protocol and according to Craig Anderton's review work quite well with Sonar.

azslow3
 
 
Out of the box, Sonar support only Mackie Control protocol. Limiting the number of devices which can be used. No HUI (ProTools),

The folks over at SSL think the MCU protocol is better and more widely accepted than the HUI protocol.

Rob[atSound-Rehab]
if you are looking for a cost effective digi mixer that works as DAW controller, you could go with the Behringer X32. Excellent piece for what it costs. 

+1 onthe X32. I used it for 2 years in Cubase. the thing works wonderfully (there, at least). 

I have been using the Roland A-300 Pro as my controller. It is good but a little too limiting. I'm interested in the PreSonus Faderport 8.  It looks like it will do the job and suit my workflow style. Has anyone on this forum tested it with Sonar?  I have watched a couple of online reviews and it looks like it will work straight out of the box.

Personally, I'm against killing anyone.... including mice. Unless they're carrying lice or eating your rice or melting your ice. That's just not nice! :-)

Rob at Sound-Rehab posted the following which requires a bit of clarification. 
if you are looking for a cost effective digi mixer that works as DAW controller, you could go with the Behringer X32. Excellent piece for what it costs. DAW control is limited, though, mostly due to Sonar's limited support for MCU protocol.
In my personal experience the issue is actually in the X32 Behringer & the Midas M32 (which I still own) since they only support 8 channels of integration / automation & not the 24 motorized faders that are on the mixers. After purchasing the M32 I was very disappointed because I was under the impression I was able to use all the faders to control Sonar with at least 24 tracks at a time. Along with the mixer I also purchased an optional DANTE card @ $950 which turned out to be an even bigger disappointment & added expense that I cannot use.
 
I notified the dealer this week & I am considering returning my M32 Midas along with the DANTE card & buying something that will work as a DAW mixer rather than a live mixer with the DAW integration as an afterthought.

CBJ....Along with the mixer I also purchased an optional DANTE card @ $950 which turned out to be an even bigger disappointment & added expense that I cannot use.
 
I notified the dealer this week & I am considering returning my M32 Midas along with the DANTE card & buying something that will work as a DAW mixer rather than a live mixer with the DAW integration as an afterthought.

I guess it's easy to get the impression that all 24 faders would work with a DAW. I'm trying to remember why I never had that impression.  Nevertheless I'm very curious about why the X-Dante card cost $950.  I have one in my X32-Core that I use for remote captures/concerts, and it (the X-Dante) cost about half that.  
 
I'm even more curious about what hinderances you encountered when using the X-Dante expansion.  For example, was it the loss of the USB/MIDI for Mackie Control Protocol, forcing the use of a separate MIDI interface.  Or was it related to the behavior of Dante Virtual Soundcard.  
 
I'm asking because I'm planning to get a PCIe Dante card at some point for my system.  It's currently a pretty vanilla setup with an M32 and USB attachment.  I'm happy with it, and I'm hoping to make  it extra easy for visiting producers to use my studio infrastructure via Dante connectivity. 
 
Thanks.