Given the recent announcement that Sonar development has been stopped, I started looking (after using Sonar for 18 years) for other options, for the future. I am still somehow not convinced there is any other DAW that is as feature packed as Sonar. In the recent Future Music (or Computer Music ?) some producers were asked what  features they wished to  see in their DAWs and quite a few of the items in the wish list are already present in Sonar. Any thoughts on which other DAW gets closest to Sonar for its midi features, lane/track management features, comping features, plugin management and so on....
 

Have a look at software board...
And do not be surprised hosts will remove this thread from here

Hi. My guess is that it is going to be moved, so I'll reply.
I got Studio One as my backup DAW (so far), but still use SONAR, and will continue to do so as long as it works (which may be for a long time). The reason for that is that there are things (IMO) that other DAW's don't, or have implement as well as SONAR. Region Fx is one.
But they (DAW's) are "just" tools, and I've found out that I can work in any DAW I've encountered so far.
It's all down to personal preference.
Best of luck.
All the best.

In my experience, Sonar wins hands-down on most fronts. It just does.

Answer to post: NOOOOO!!!!!!!!

I need a DAW that handles instrument definitions as in-depth as Sonar does....  I need access to NRPNs and RPNs (breaking them up into separate CCs does not cut it). I need sysex editing.  I need all Yamaha SW1000XG patches to be accessible by name.  I want to be able to define NRPNs, RPN and controller names.  I want a DAW that allows MIDI scripting (like CAL).  I need a DAW that handles Studioware panels.    I want a DAW that has the MIDI editing capabilities that Sonar has.  I want a DAW that can natively load all my projects from 1998 to 2018. 
 
You get the picture?

Sonar wins hands down.

No. Use Sonar.
 
I drive a logo-ed Astro van because it suits my business.
Chevy doesn't make that anymore either.
 
Makes no difference. Use Sonar.
 

It's going to be a trade off. Nothing goes as deep in certain areas (like midi) as sonar. However, you'll find areas where your new DAW shines. I'm also using studio 1, and it comes with great VSTi s and is very stable.
I plan on using both as long as possible.
Unlike many others, I have not given up hope that someone will pick up the torch.
Sonar is just too valuable to leave on the curb.

Hmm.. It depends. I must say after an careful and lengthily consideration I "jumped ship" last year April to Cubase, because the MIDI implementation in Cubase is in my humble opinion better than that of Sonar Platinum. Don't get me wrong - Sonar Platinum is very, very good, but Cubase is just a level higher.
 
I tried Studio One also. And while it is a very nice DAW, I personally (as mainly MIDI user), found that program lacking in the MIDI department compared to Cubase. I think if you are more of an audio/recording person, then Studio One is a great choice. However - In my humble opinion nothing beats Cubase if you want to really use all MIDI possibility's.
 
Oh - and to be honest. Once you are used to the Control Room you will miss this kind of setup in about every other DAW. I am not kidding.

JClosed is correct.  NOTHING beats Cubase MIDI-wise.  Nothing!
So, if you do MIDI Orchestration, or work heavily with MIDI instruments
then Cubase is where you should live.  MIDI in Sonar was ok, but very non-
intuitive in many ways.  Things that were very simple in Cubase, are not so
simple in Sonar, or other DAW's for that matter.  I'm sure those of you who
were "used" to Sonar's way of doing things may not agree.  But the consensus
from MOST "heavy" MIDI users is that Cubase is the place to be.

I seriously can't believe that Pro Tools has maintained it's foothold ( I'm sure being HD helps it ). 
It has always been severely lacking in the feature department.  The ONLY thing that keeps it
where it is is the fact that most Engineers are used to working in it...so just keep
working in it, but not for features, but just "because" it's easier to do what you already know
than to "relearn" how to do things, even if, in some cases, it might be easier.