bwbalint
It will be good to learn things in a new program from a slightly different angle.
I have ordered Cubase this AM. I have spent a lot of time going through training videos. While functionally, the products are similar, Cubase (for better or worse) strikes me more like an adaptation of your typical digital mixing board. For example, the tracks all have a "channel strip" distinct from whatever inserts you use. And that "channel strip" is essentially the same functions you have on a the "phat channel" of a Presonus mixer. The inserts are a whole separate thing, as if running a physical chain of outboard inserts. With SONAR, you can freely assemble any chain of effects you want, with no limits. You can get the job done either way. I think SONAR is a lot more elegant in that example, but people familiar with digital boards will probably find the Cubase model more familiar.
Likewise, the routing on SONAR is far more elegant. With Cubase, if you want to have a reverb bus, you create an "effects track" and send to it. But as far as I can tell, you can put only that one effect on each effects track -- again, just like most digital boards. With SONAR, you send to a bus, and the bus can have any combination of effects and processing you desire. In the real world, you can make either solution work, and again, a person familiar with digital boards might prefer the Cubase setup over the more elegant SONAR solution.
This isn't a criticism of either product. The designers had different philosophies, but you can make either work.