Hi Noel,
 Thanks for explaining that this constraint in SONAR is not a constraint of all of the drivers SONAR can use but rather it is a constraint imposed by just some of the Windows drivers that SONAR can use.
 
 This reminds me of all the lively Soundblaster debates that used to occur here. :-)
 
 Speaking for myself, I have used ASIO drivers on SONAR for the past decade or more, so it has long been a circumstance where I have known that it was possible to not have to think of each input as part of some pair. I the meantime, I have frequently observed misplaced explanations that this constraint must be accepted as an imposition forced by hardware and drivers, so it is refreshing to encounter an accurate explanation that points out where and why the limitation exists.
 
 
 
 
 
 One thing I have never understood, is that even if stereo inputs in SONAR can only be made up of odd/even pairs when using the Windows drivers, why does SONAR's mono input naming convention force the use of the Left and Right appendages. The friendly names don't seem to have anything to do with any constraints of the driver. They just seem like some sort of arbitrary legacy. It seems as if the "left" and "right" labels could remain behind the scenes, so to speak, and users should be able to name their mono inputs what ever they want and expect to see exactly what they choose for a name in a list of mono inputs. Why is it not Easy and Breezy?

@200bpm, I'm a RME UCX user. I now use the fiber cable that came with the interface to loopback all ADAT channels for live monitoring. It's kinda useful. I know you know about the loopback button on a pair of outputs, but when you use that button the inputs cannot be routed again to the hardware outputs. If you use the fiber cable to loopback the ADAT channels, you can loop back as many times as you want (stacking the eqs and compressors). Just at tip.
 
Using my RME UCX, the only way to conjoin two non contiguous tracks into a stereo track in Sonar is to loopback (either using ADAT fiber or the Totalmix Loopback button) or record as mono tracks and bounce to stereo.
 
@200BPm, you can save snapshots and workspaces in Totalmix to bring them back up quickly. Remember the Total Reset under options - reset mix.
 
Lastly, if you aren't using RME DigiCheck, you should totally check it out!! Things I use regularly in Digi Check are the Spectral Analyzer, the Vector Scope, the EBU Meter, and Global Record. Global record is really worth checking out for making live recordings where you do all your mixing in Total Mix. No need to mess with Sonar until the show is captured. It writes all the audio data to a single file and it writes it very efficiently. Saves me a ton of time and headache when I'm not going to be monitoring anything out of Sonar.
 
Also, thanks for suggesting the organization of the two tracks into a stereo pair. It'd never considered doing this before your post and I can appreciate it as a good way to keep the two together and organized.
 
I mainly use a track template for recording the guitar which has the direct input, left and right stereo track for my Roland GR20 outputs and a midi track. I love that you can group the midi with the audio. Set this under preferences > Project > Record > Multi-Track Grouping - (I use group only in folders).
 
Using Multi-Track Grouping allows you to edit across many tracks (not just 2) splitting, cropping, nudging etc. Or using Fast Comp tools.

Its because the driver input names as exposed in preferences are *already* grouped as stereo pairs.
So even if you provide a friendly name there it represents a stereo input. The Left/Right/Stereo prefix in the UI lets the user distinguish between the left or right channel in the pair. 
 
When the friendly names feature was done many years ago, it was stereo centric since it had to work for all the driver modes not just ASIO. I do agree this convention is not ideal for ASIO drivers since you might want an explicit name for the mono channel itself. The way to do this would be to allow defining per mono channel friendly names rather than stereo channel names as we have today. Then the UI can list the user defined names directly and there would be no need for the Left/Right prefix. Would this proposal address this specific naming problem? 
 
We have plans to improve the overall naming conventions used across SONAR so I'll add this to the list for then.  
This doesn't address the OP's concern however since he wants to be able to pick arbitrary mono inputs and turn them into a single stereo pair. That would be a much bigger undertaking since would require a routing matrix like driver control panels provide. In terms of value it seems like a bit of a corner case use so I'm not sure its worth the cost for such a configuration feature. Heck if even RME's Totalmix from hell doesn't handle this scenario it must be a bit of a corner case :)
I do see the specific need for it in his case however although its fairly simple to combine two mono tracks into a stereo pair later in SONAR.
 

Hi Noel, Yes, I agree that a discussion about the friendly names doesn't address the OPs concerns.
 
The work arounds choices for the OP have already been described.
 
1) Record as dual mono and bounce to stereo after the fact. This is probably worth the trouble if you really value your screen real estate.
 
2) Record as dual mono and open Tools>*audio editor of choice* and convert one of the mono tracks to stereo with the signal on one "side" and add the other track to the empty side. YUCK.
 
3) Use Pro Tools, Cubase, Studio One or Reaper to record the guitar track and then import the track in to SONAR.
 
4) Use some sort of loop back routing with your hardware so instead of using two of the driver's inputs you use four. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
@bpm200, One thing we should mention for the benefit of readers is that direct signals and signals from a mic'ed amp often exhibit different "times of arrival". One can either leave the signals with the relative offset or endeavor to align them so that there is no timing offset. I imagine you know this from your experience but it occurs to me that it should be acknowledged that the two discrete channels in a two track such as you are describing will either have, or not have, a relative timing offset depending on if, and or where, you make a choice about whether you will adjust, or not adjust, for the offset. 
 
 

Thanks for everyone's response(s).   

mike,
I don't notice any effective delay.  Because the miked signal is a real amplifier, there is no additional latency added.  When I later reamp with multi-mics, I arrange the mics so that there are no phase issues.
 

mike_mccue
@bpm200, One thing we should mention for the benefit of readers is that direct signals and signals from a mic'ed amp often exhibit different "times of arrival". One can either leave the signals with the relative offset or endeavor to align them so that there is no timing offset. I imagine you know this from your experience but it occurs to me that it should be acknowledged that the two discrete channels in a two track such as you are describing will either have, or not have, a relative timing offset depending on if, and or where, you make a choice about whether you will adjust, or not adjust, for the offset. 

 
This is actually an argument for NOT recording this way since you have less control - the two channels are embedded in one clip now so editing the offset will be problematic. I think you have far more flexibility by recording as two discrete channels rather than a single stereo track. Since one of the channels is the reamp channel you are shooting yourself in the foot doing this, since the effects you put on the track later will process both channels which is probably not what you want in this scenario since one channel is reamped.
Since your main reason for having a stereo track seems to be to save real estate it seems that putting the two tracks into a folder would handle your requirement better. 

Hi 200bpm, I was trying to leave lots of room for the idea that there are many ways to either address the timing offset or perhaps not even worry about it.
 
The idea that you address the timing during the Reamp process seems like a very natural way to do it. Thanks for explaining. 
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

mike_mccue
@bpm200, One thing we should mention for the benefit of readers is that direct signals and signals from a mic'ed amp often exhibit different "times of arrival"...

 
...This is actually an argument for NOT recording this way since you have less control - the two channels are embedded in one clip now so editing the offset will be problematic. 
 

 
If it is a concern, there are several ways to achieve time alignment on the way in.
 
For example; This is a popular device found in recording studios: http://www.littlelabs.com/redeye.html
 
Making arguments about how not to record doesn't seem as productive as making recording seem easy and fun.

I understand. However it looks like the benefit to recording a single stereo wave with a reamp and normal channel seems more trouble than its worth. Rather than allowing for something like this, perhaps the community would be better served by us adding some UI and editing features to allow dealing with multiple mono track groups better.