I hope that I'm allowed to post this here. It's a bit of a rant but also a feather in the cap for Cakewalk Sonar. I've been using Cakewalk since Pro Audio 6 and have been extremely happy with it.
 
I have a studio which was a converted double garage and chose SONAR as my DAW. I record albums for clients but mainly concentrate on my own productions. I recently finished my third solo album and decided to load one of my tracks onto Recording Magazines section for reviews on recording original music.
 
I was very excited to receive an email from the editor informing me that my track was to be featured as a "Spotlight Artist" for the month. The review was excellent and from what the editor told me "their reviews go out to about 20 000 readers".
 
Since having the review go out I've received quite a number of emails from readers and the overwhelming question is:
"How did you manage to achieve this using SONAR???"
 
My question is: Why is SONAR perceived as to not be a professional DAW? IMHO it is as professional as the next DAW if not the best DAW out there.
 
If anyone is interested, here is the link to the review in Recording Mag: http://www.recordingmag.com/tapereviews/2017/02/347.html 
The link to the actual video which was shot while recording the song is:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSv2v_ztcZ4
 
I have to say that I'm becoming a bit pi**ed off at the general perception of SONAR. Is this something that other users have experienced?
 
Sorry for the rant but I had to vent somewhere and I thought that the SONAR forum would be a good place. At least it's amongst fellow SONAR users.
 
Cheers,
 
Peter.

Can understand your point immediatly.
I remember many times people asking me with which 
DAW I managed  a good sounding mix.
And when I mention Sonar Plat , the  reaction is:
 
Sonar ? But Sonar is buggy 
Don´t want to go and continue these conversations anymore cause most the discussions
are leading in the direction that I should apologize for working with Sonar.
Strange.
 
 

Pragi
Can understand your point immediatly.
I remember many times people asking me with which 
DAW I managed  a good sounding mix.
And when I mention Sonar Plat , the  reaction is:
 
Sonar ? But Sonar is buggy 
Don´t want to go and continue these conversations anymore cause most the discussions
are leading in the direction that I should apologize for working with Sonar.
Strange.

Yep, I hear you. I should be ecstatic about the review (and I am) but it just leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth when something that you work with on a daily basis (which works for you) is questioned as if it's sub standard.
 
The song wasn't something that was thrown together. It was painstakingly recorded and mixed very carefully. The video was meticulously put together into a complete package and it couldn't have been done without a very, very capable DAW. The synths in the track were mostly SONAR soft synths (that came with the software). The only synth that wasn't part of SONAR was the mellotron which was the Roland JV2080. I'm not saying that this couldn't have been done with another DAW but don't make out that SONAR is not capable of producing professional productions.

Hi there, I am sure that you are most proud of what you have accomplished and you certainly should be! I went and watched your video and it does sound great. I wonder why the song is so long? I am sure you have your reasons, which are good enough.
Anyway, I don't have all the Sonar knowledge that a lot of these guys do, but I do know what you are referring to with your comment. Whenever someone does ask me, I tell them and they pretty much always reply with, "You should use Pro Tools." I have asked repeatedly what they think is so great about Pro Tools, and they usually just say, "Its just better."
 
Here is my answer to your question though: Sonar does not invest in its image. They also do not seem to be overly concerned with the user. I don't know if this differs from the other DAW makers, but it certainly seems that this is true. I know, many of the hardcore supporters will want evidence, but they know, as I do, that it is generally true. Basically, it seems to me, Sonar is primarily interested in users constantly upgrading-spending-and not that concerned about their reputation in the world of users. I think that it is possible that this reputation that I speak of, has gotten around far more than they wish to admit. Because of this, they "hit" the existing users more and more rather than reach outwardly towards new customers. Therefore, they spend little in image. Maybe they don't need to spend more on image. George Lucas never spent much money on adverts for Star Wars-not because he couldn't afford to, but because he believed that he didn't need to in order to sell the tickets. He was right!
 
I don't know if that helps in any way but there is at least one possible answer for you, I am sure you will get plenty more!
 
Well done on your success!
 
bob

Most of the time people I work with haven't heard of Sonar. They don't even know enough about it that they might (erroneously) say it's buggy. I think Holland is pretty entrenched in Logic and ProTools, with the EDM crew using mostly FruityLoops and sometimes Ableton Live.

That's is exactly what Most professionals in the industry feel! Weather Logic, Protools etc. most feel Sonar is for the "Non-Professional" hobbyists? Personally I love Sonar, I also came from Protools HD, used it for years.

Years ago (1998 I think), I bought a copy of Pro Audio 9, as I was told by the salesman at my local music shop that it was one of the best DAW's available. He said it was easy to learn, and would do almost anything any other DAW could do.
I learned it as best I could and then put it down for a couple of years while I was concentrating on other things.
When I came back to music recording years later, I was told that Pro Tools was the DAW of choice for musicians now, so I purchased a copy and tried my best to learn and use it. I also tried Cubase, Audacity and Garage band over the space of 3 or 4 years, but put most of my time into PT.
In the end I came back to what was now called Sonar 8 then almost immediately upgraded to 8.5, then Sonar Professional and the new skylight interface.
Maybe it's the thinking that Sonar is a jack-of-all trades and a master of none that leads to the thinking that it can't be a "professional" application. But I think that is selling it way short. I'll wager those that think that way, have rarely used it in anger, and haven't taken the time to really learn it.
Also, the fact that PT is used in so many studios the world over, makes it difficult for Sonar to break into the initial purchase realm of those starting out in this industry.
I think all Cakewalk can do is continue to produce a class product. Eventually a tipping point will come where people will look back and wonder why it took so long for Sonar to be recognised for what it is, (a leading and innovative application in it's field).

I'll say that Sonar doesn't look slick a lot of the time. Its interface, even with Skylight, is way more cluttered than most DAWs. I don't mind, I like all the options, but consider for instance the track headers and control bar, or even channel strips, and compare them to ProTools or Logic, let alone something minimalistic like Live.

Anyone who has used Sonar for more than 3 minutes is accustomed to receiving the typical sonar hate from their peers. What I find particularly insulting in this case is that you made that recording using an Ibanez bass along with Ibanez and 'off-brand' guitars and rim clipped 57's and no visible overhead or cymbal mics of any kind and STILL DESPITE ALL THAT, the only thing they can pick on is how did you manage this in sonar. That right there is a new low for sonar hate in my book.

A cracking tune by the way!