Anderton
If you're fiddling with it, you can record those automation moves. 

This isn't entirely true. I've run across a few synths that had non-automatable elements. In one case, I was using a Reaktor ensemble - a groovebox - which had mute and solo buttons on all of its elements. I wanted to record a performance wherein I brought certain elements in and out. I could perform what I wanted perfectly with the mouse, but of course couldn't record that performance because of this bizarre limitation of Sonar. Checking "live input" in the bounce dialog wouldn't help either, because you can't interact with the interface during a bounce. 

FastBikerBoy
Perception I guess then. I've always assumed "live input" to refer to anything coming in from OTB, as opposed to stuff ITB.
 
For example, I wouldn't expect to record notes clicked in the PRV note pane but I would expect notes played on one of my controllers to be recorded.

yeah fair enough, but to clarify - live bounce only records external (otb) input during bounce, not any itb tweaks?

Related to the point about live mixing, it was odd for me at first not to be able to make a real-time mix; but now I just consider the automation pass (where I am recording the moves) as the mix and then I just print (export) it afterwards.
 
The disadvantage is that since I usually have some live input (e.g., external synths or non-frozen soft synths), I have to print (export) the mix in real time which means getting the result exported takes twice as long.
 
That is not a big deal to me because 1-automation buys me so much more and 2-after working on a song for 100 hours, what's another 3.5 minutes to export?
 
I do understand that tweakers—synth tweakers, not drug users—have a bit of a different view.

34 posts and the OP has stil not told us what they are trying to do here. It might be as simple as needing to copy or clone a track, we are all assuming this is a case for real time adjustments. 
 
But it has at least started an interesting discusion about a feature that might be found very useful to many. 
 
What is needed is a record button on the Buses.
Think about this for a second and a light bulbs might come on for you too! 
If  a buss could be recorded this would result in an associated audio track beside it.
More light bulbs about sub mixes and special purpose tracks light up. 
Now lets record the Master buss which would be your final mix of the song. Big light bulb comes on for Mastering with in Sonar etc... 
 
Only glitch in this thinking is there would be a issue with having to mute all the original tracks to prevent doubling. 
 
Only other option I can see is that a Buss or Audio Interface output is available as a track input. Not sure if ASIO drivers would cooperate. 

lawp

FastBikerBoy
Perception I guess then. I've always assumed "live input" to refer to anything coming in from OTB, as opposed to stuff ITB.
 
For example, I wouldn't expect to record notes clicked in the PRV note pane but I would expect notes played on one of my controllers to be recorded.

yeah fair enough, but to clarify - live bounce only records external (otb) input during bounce, not any itb tweaks?

 
TBH I don't know because I've never tried, but I've always assumed it wouldn't record ITB tweaks. TBH I rarely use the "live input" setting at all. I'm lucky enough to have a ZED-R16 which gives me all the options I need when it comes to OTB mixing etc.
 
I just know it's there if needed.

Many of the post addressing the live mix are simply done using what is called "real time" bounce in SONAR, as previously stated.  There is the desire to capture in real time a live performance of a soft synth to audio when, for instance, the synth has a random option which cannot be predetermined.  (I, myself, do not use such a feature simply because it cannot be reproduced at will.)  As Craig described, this is not an essential feature as most musicians and producers would not use nor depend on this feature.
 
Now, as for the loopback strategy, as mentioned, can be easily done with a hardware interface if it provides this function.  I do use this with my Saffire for a quick "not so much of a mix" for later reference or transfer to mobile storage, e.g. CD, flash drive, etc.  Now there is the simple solution for the Bakers to allow this within SONAR without the fear of the menacing feedback.  When a signal is sent from SONAR back to the soundcard/interface and then sent back out to SONAR (loopback), the track for the incoming (loopback) input can have its output disabled when recording.  It's just a matter of identifying that incoming signal as a loopback signal in SONAR so it can do this automatically.  For instance, in the desired "loopback" track SONAR would provide an input option labeled "LOOPBACK" with the corresponding output(s) from the interface.  This could be displayed and checked in the Audio Preference so that SONAR will know/recognize the hardware outputs as the designated loopback signal.  So, when a track is configured accordingly, the output would be disabled as long as the input (loopback signal) was enable and vice versa (think grouping in this instance).  Presto!  Real time record/capture of the performance without feedback.  So, in essence the loopback track would be a special/specific track for this purpose (unlike a standard/ordinary audio track).  Sounds like another FR for the same old FR submitted time and time again.  Not hard to fathom nor implement.
 
Kind regards,
 
Living Room Rocker

Jeff Evans
Craig this is still way faster than recording a whole lot of automation moves as well on a virtual synth. Slow.  Many times I can just grab some parameters of a virtual synth and get exactly what I want to hear in one pass! Nothing beats that. For example in one pass I might tweak 5 parameters on the fly.

This is the part I don't get. With a controller, which presumably has to be used anyway if the synth is virtual, you can tweak 5 parameters on the fly and record the moves that result. I just don't understand how recording the results of tweaking parameters in real time is slower than recording the results of tweaking parameters in real time when the only difference is one is recorded as audio that plays back, and one is recorded as automation moves that affect audio as it plays back. There must be something about workflow that's foreign to me.
 
The only advantage I can think of is if you're using a hardware synth that also offers a plug-in that allows it to look like a virtual instrument to the DAW, and there's a resolution difference where playing the knob in real time has no stair-stepping, but if you feed it MIDI control, there might be. Howerver these days, it seems any decent synth interpolates MIDI data (my ancient Panasonic DA7 mixer) interpolated 127 MIDI values to over 1000 steps of resolution so it's pretty well know), and a vintage synth wouldn't have the option to run as a plug-in.

johnnyV
34 posts and the OP has stil not told us what they are trying to do here. It might be as simple as needing to copy or clone a track, we are all assuming this is a case for real time adjustments. 
 
But it has at least started an interesting discusion about a feature that might be found very useful to many. 
 
What is needed is a record button on the Buses.

This would save the time of a bounce. For multiband processing, I often send a signal to multiple buses. To clean up the tracks during the mix, I'll bounce the output for the buses to a single track for easier manipulation. If the bus could record, I could record the results during one of the passes rather than do a bounce.

...wicked
Yeah but I bet if you went back and offered Alan Parsons and Pink Floyd some automation for their mixing project they would've jumped at it. 

I've always considered mixing as related to live performance, not "recording." But that's why I embraced automation when it appeared. I could go nuts when doing a "mix performance" and take all kind of chances. But if I forgot a couple crucial mute button pushes, it wasn't necessary to do the mix over or do snapshot overwrites of those parts. IOW automation allows me MORE freedom of performance, not less, as long as I have a decent controller (and by that I mean more than eight faders!!). 

Back in the day when we had three people working a mix, rehearsing, then going to tape, only to realize we'd missed a pan or mute (like Craig mentions)...automation would have changed our lives.
 
Worth mentioning is that on a master for a record, we wouldn't back up and reuse (record over) the 1/4" or 1/2" tape, so a dozen or so messed up mixes meant some actual dollars, especially since we were cutting stuff all day every day.
 
One of the many reasons I don't miss tape.