I agree with some of the previous threads re: features Cakewalk should implement to make it an even better DAW. I believe there are a few specific instances that would appeal to a broad range of users that a few other DAW's have been using as well.
1. As has been noted, a simple Arranger Track capability would be huge for workflow. This would be something similar to what Studio One now uses (and I think possibly Cubase too).
2. Some may consider this a bit of a cheat but I think a Chord Suggestion mechanism, similar to what Cubase offers, would have broad appeal as well.
3. For a smaller segment of users, I think Cakewalk may eventually consider updating their video/film capabilities so that serious film composers can feel comfortable using Cakewalk as their go to DAW for such functions.
4. Also, I believe the Matrix view has great potential promise and possibilities but it seems as if Cakewalk has sort of forgotten about and left it in "beta" mode as one user described it.
5. Finally, I feel that Cakewalk should just junk some of their older soft synths and either replace them with something more up-to-date or let them go. Frankly, their age (and I'm assuming lack of use by most) bring down the DAW's brand.
6. On a related note, my opinion is that because their are so many great third party plug-ins out there (NI, Spectrasonics, East/West) that Cakewalk should only introduce their own VST's if they are truly ready for "prime time." Again, other-wise, the brand becomes degraded. An example, imo, of a VST that Cakewalk is effective with is their Rhodes/Electric Piano piano plug-in which actually sounds very good and has a decent lay-out. On the other hand, I believe their True Piano's plug-in, especially when compared to what else is out their, is barely serviceable and that if only played deep within a mix.
On a more positive note, I believe Cakewalk is moving in the right direction, particularly in their GUI and things like their toolbar and some of their other capabilities, even when compared to other heralded DAW's. I think comping into one track has been improved which is a big help. I have become a believer in the roll-out system so long as they're legitimate features and fixes and not just irrelevant, sounds-good bells and whistles.
So, all said, I hope Cakewalk continues in their efforts of refining and adding features that people will actually find useful and practically innovative and continue to make workflow both easier, more attractive and at the same time more sophisticated.
I think implementing some of these suggestions will firmly place Cakewalk as a 10/10 DAW.
 
 

This is a step above a "just make it better post" but really does not fit the intent of the "Features & Ideas" area. Several of these suggestions have already been made. It would be better to vote in the existing threads. As it stands, would votes for the arranger suggestion in this thread impact the main arranger suggestion thread...no. Would votes for the chord track suggestion made in this thread affect the chord track thread? If I like part of this "feature request" but dislike others and vote accordingly, what does it mean and how should the ideas and votes be evaluated by CW?

Two more notes: Cakewalk customer service is uniformly excellent. Also, I have noticed that sound clarity is noticeably better in the "X4" series as opposed to X3 although I do still get the occasional audio dropout.
Forum host: Sometimes a repeat is necessary and has more impact than votes, especially when no indication from Cakewalk is made that such suggestions are being looked into or are being worked on. (And yes, sometimes they do. See: Replacer, Drum; Center, Command).  Seeing, in the real sense, is sometimes believing and one hopes gets needed attention. Also, I made other suggestions and comments not made or very rarely stated.
I  have been a long-time Cakewalk user and am trying to add my two cents to make a better product.
The slight condensation in your reply doesn't represent the company well. Maybe another line of work might be in the offing.
Frankly, if these comments break Forum protocol rules, so be it. I'll live and survive. 
 

Repeating requests in this area is explicitly discouraged by Cakewalk.
 
Read my post as you will. WRT the arranger track, Noel posted in the other thread asking users about the arranger track implementation. Don't you think it would be better to answer Noel's question rather than posting another thread asking for an arranger track?
 
It is fine to want to help make a better product. Cakewalk has provided this facility to that end. They have suggested how to use this area http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3096121. Maybe another area would better fit your needs.

>>  sound clarity is noticeably better in the "X4" series as opposed to X3
 
Could someone who knows please confirm this?
Has something been changed in the underlying audio engine?
 

Performance sure... Clarity ... Not sure what that is supposed to mean but your audio interface and sample rate is what matters here not Sonar.

jpetersen
>>  sound clarity is noticeably better in the "X4" series as opposed to X3
 
Could someone who knows please confirm this?
Has something been changed in the underlying audio engine?
 

20-40% better...

I can take a stereo file created in X2, open it in X3, save it under a different name, open that file and the one originally saved in X2 and they will null one one file is reversed in phase.
That shows there is no change in the engine between X2,3 and 4.

A cwp only has pointers to the audio files, so saving a new cwp in any version of SONAR will null if the audio isn't altered.

Yes I'm aware how Sonar works. I specifically mentioned files not projects in the previous post but didn't go into the full details of what I did. Rest assured I was talking about audio files not project files. The projects were simply the hosts for the audio that I imported, exported or bounced. Then nulled.