For me, it depends on your definition of Mastering, and what medium being mastered to. Obviously, if you ask an engineer such as Bernie Grundman, Dave from Lucky Lacquers, or even any Vinyl cutter over at United what their definition is, they may not feel Sonar's Mastering capabilities are the true definition of Mastering, but when you take your project to someone who can master it, it'll likely go into a DAW and be pushed out as a CD-R. I think Sonar can do some Mastering functions, but it still really lacks the metering, and work-flow. People have been using PT for years to Master projects, but what overkill use of a resource.
 
I still use Wavelab, since the latest version comes with a DDP encoder, a brand-able export reporting tool, the ability to build a montage and assign markers that translate fully into a CD master, and great metering. Plus, the workflow is second to none, IMO. With that said, simply exporting a great-sounding (or even smash-limited) single is nothing Sonar can't handle, for sure.

Dream Logic Audio
I totally support this.  I do most of my mastering in Sonar already with the help of some 3rd-party plugins, but having this functionality built in would add even more value to the program for new users.
 
 If Cakewalk is smart, they will put Craig in charge of project development for Mastering Enhancements. (You're welcome Craig!) 
 
In addition to what has already been suggested, I would LOVE to see K-System Metering as an option for the built-in Sonar meters.
 
Kenn

Kenn, I agree.  I already do most of my mastering in Sonar, but with existing tools.  I would like to NOT have a separate program to support mastering, and would love to be able to do it ALL directly within Sonar.  This, along with enhancements to Editing are what interest me; not additional midi instruments.  
 
I would also like to see more enhancements to metering.  

POst # 45 by theheliosequence
 
This was the best post from my perspective. If you have never used proper mastering software like say Wave Lab or Sound Forge you just don't get it. 
The best line was this: 
A proper wave editor. When I double click on an audio clip I don't want to go to a loop construction view... I want to go to Sonar's new audio editor. That has tools for fixing digital errors, clicks, tape hiss, vinyl pops and scratches and maybe even a de-clipper.
 
This has been my one and only feature request and so far I've received zero feedback from the forum when ever the subject is brought up. Just like you'll see his post was ignored even though all his points were excellent.  It's like no one understands the power of direct wave editing and how mastering is really done by the pro's. We are forced to "tool copy" into a wave editor to fix little burps. Sure Sonar can do a few of these things but only after a ridiculous amount of mouse clicks. In a wave editor its a quick operation that can be repeated without re opening a process gui. 
 
I already own Wave Lab so I don't care if Sonar ever includes Mastering as I would not want to re learn in a new environment. I'd continue using Wave Lab because I know it better than any software I own. But It would be sure handy to have a wave editor in Sonar. 
 

MondoArt
Can someone explain what's lacking in the metering in Sonar?
 
I always set my meters to show both RMS and peak.  Plus, I used another free plug-in called TT Dynamic Range Meter, which measures dynamic range for an entire song, album, whatever.  Nothing past these things matter to me.

Be aware the free TT-Dynamic Range meter was stopped being offered by brainworx because of issues with Pleasurize Music.
It also known to be inaccurate & has since been replaced by the meter available at Plugin Alliance.
 
EBU compliant metering is the current way forward. Others daws have had them for several years & should already be included in Sonar Plat.

The HOFA 4U Meter is an excellent freebie.
http://hofa-plugins.de/en/plugins/4u/

 

brconflict
For me, it depends on your definition of Mastering, and what medium being mastered to. 

In my seminars on mastering, I differentiate between "Mastering" with a capital "M" (i.e., a mission-critical project that's crucial to a career) and with a small "m" (what gets posted on the web or put on demos, but needs to be much better than the raw stereo mix). 
 
Every now and then SONAR surprises me, like the time I got rid of a digital click by cutting the individual clipped samples and replacing them with individual samples copied from either side of the click. For me, with a properly recorded track mastering is 85% EQ, 10% dynamics, and 5% waveform editing (e.g., bringing an isolated snare hit up +3 dB, shaping a fadeout). AFAIC SONAR has EQ that's up to the task, with the LP-64 for precision and the ProChannel for more "character" shaping; the waveform editing is good unless you need to do surgery. I can even do my "micro-mastering" trick to get volume while retaining dynamics with SONAR...the "Find Peak" function (that's also found in Wavelab) is really handy.

Audition 4 (CS 5.5) was rewritten from the ground up and contained only audio ability. MIDI is gone completely, and not sure if it ever came back? I do not consider that (my) version a DAW, but the wave processing is nice (I actually run it in 32 bit MME mode through my Realtek most often).

+1 to all of the above. Back in the day, when I was naive about what DAWs actually do, I thought mastering was the exclusive feature within Sonar... It practically has everything else.
But even better would be working with companies like Izotope or Waves or D16. A thought that came to my mind was getting Radix, who has an awesome drum limiter on the market and being able to master/mix with AD2, etc.. right after removing the gift wrap within Sonar? Sounds awesome, or any other of the above mentioned products. Especially, if it came with any of their mastering bundles.
It's not like having all the tools in a Sonar box is going to have others wondering how they are gonna eat. But it would be an awesome feature. It's all about evolving a great product in my opinion. Simular to using a Waves vocal plugin on your synths... wasn't made for it originally but an innovative idea down the road of sound effects and creativity... what would be any different if the innovation is within the Sonar itself? It really isn't anything new besides... Samplitude is doing so, as well as others.
Those that have a workflow consisting of Sonar and using other software products won't change thieir spots. And if comparing your sound in other software is the maxim, why can't one compare masters?
If Akai can put together an Audio Production hard drive comprising of various audio VSTs from different companies, why would Sonar having a mastering suite comprised of various companies be any more odd? Besides, Sonar does that now with Melodyne, etc. and the Bakers are still cooking up goodies month to month.
Again, +1, put it in a package and I know I'd be buying it.

alewgro
Why do people use other products like Studio One for mastering?  I am new to mastering so I am trying to learn.  Why do people export their songs into another app? 

In addition to just using a different environment for mastering, some people like the way another DAW approaches mastering.  I have been using Studio One for a while (well, for the few years since it arrived) because what it calls the Project page is a very well thought-out mastering environment.  Too many things to list here, so if you want to see whether Sonar is the environment you want or something helps the mastering work flow better, check out some of the online videos about Studio One's Project Page.  
 
Note:  I don't work for Presonus but have a good consumer working relationship with them,  and they are not only bringing new ideas to the table, their work is helping other DAW creators "up their game".
 
Good luck,
 
Steve

I do some mastering, some as part of an entire record/mix/master workflow, and sometimes people bring me finished mixes.  I used to use Sound Forge, but the last couple years I've been using Sonar.
 
Recently for a long-term project the artist opted to using a local (high priced) mastering engineer, and I got to sit in on several sessions.  He uses Studio One for his mastering platform, and I liked the workflow that I observed.
 
The main difference from what I had been doing in Sonar for mastering was having all the tracks up at once, making it very easy to compare and A/B different tracks, which is important if you are working toward having a cohesive sound for all tracks involved.
 
I modified my mastering template to reflect what I saw in Studio One as best as I could with Sonar, and this is what I use now:

 
Each track is a clip, and processing for each clip is done in its effects bin.  I have Waveform preview set on in the master bus, which gives me a real time visual of each track's processing.  At the end I copy each clip to the windows clipboard and paste it into an "export" project to facilitate exporting to separate files.
 
This works pretty well, but there are a few ways it could be better, namely:
 
1. Easier access to each clip's effects bin, maybe a permanent pane in the inspector area that always show the selected clip's effects.
2. An "Export Clip" option that would export the audio in just the selected clip.
3. Better built-in metering for the master bus, along the lines of the more complete metering plugins currently available.
 
I don't really desire more "mastering" plugins to be added to the Sonar package, as the ones already present plus the third party plugs I have are more than sufficient.
 

Craig, and all:
 
I am mastering two CD's right now.  Both for classical labels and commercial release.  Here is my workflow and you can see if it aligns with your goals to establish Sonar as a Mastering Environment
 
#1 I typically track in either PT or Sonar (sometimes both simultaneously if it is a live orchestral concert and I only get one pass)
#2 I do all of my (adult) editing in Sonar
#3 I do all of my (also adult) summing in Sonar - render my two buss or stems if I'm going to film as well
#3 I export the 24/48 BWF's into Izotope RX for all final spectral repair work and more precise analysis / edits
#4 I export 24/48 out of Izotope and import those renders into Pro Tools
#5 I do my final processing using Massey and/or Waves (only Massey plugs won't work in Sonar) Measurement, Energy Management / RMS / EQ / Mid-Side / EQ Match, etc
#6 Final renders come out of PT in 24/48 BWF's
#7 Import final renders into Sony CD Architect (BTW steps 3 through 6 done on Mac)
 
While I'm sure there are 'better' ways and arguably more efficient workflows, I like the granular control I have at each step and have never had a single problem with this approach.
 
-D

If the trend to internet everything continues...why master?...mp3s?....at what cost?...seems redundant now to my mind..in ethics....fun none the less, to try to master that conceptual ideal....but is it necessary if mp3s are the new raven rave?...

I always found iTunes files to be a bit 'exaggerated' and equalised towards Apple-centric hardware. 

Maybe...
 
 

And let's get nobody here wrong. Sonar CAN and has been used for (m)astering (Thanks Craig, that's a great way of depicting the difference by the capitalization ~ Although I prefer the capitalization as the process or title, while the product is lower-case; it's just a matter of taste for me, nothing subversive). There is no reason it can't provide what most people need to get music out there in any format. For me, it's easier to produce the final master in Wavelab, since the workflow is conducive to final editing and building the master as you'd want in the final product. It mainly gets all of the other "mixing" functions out of the way. Conversely, I've mixed entire sessions in Wavelab, and it's NOT a good tool for that. Sonar is the current choice for me. 

In answer to the proper metering, metering is getting better and better all the time. If it were just a bit easier to accomplish, I'd have two or three monitors dedicated strictly to meters, and Wavelab remembers that. Your ears can tell you what meters can't, but meters will reveal things your ears can't, such as super low-end rumbling. If you do this professionally, metering is paramount. The more accurate your masters are, the better they will translate to other formats, such as radio or online. Video game manufacturers and TV production now require standards to be maintained. So, here, even Wavelab falls short. You need a real measuring tool such as Waves Loudness Meter (WLM) or Flux's Pure Analyzer System to know whether you're compliant to their needs or not. That said, you can succeed in mastering with Sonar, but not as easily.

To help Sonar become that tool I would like to see...
 
idea: Sonar to have a new screenset (notated as "M" vs 1-10) that gets all the normal mixing elements out of the way and provides an entirely new Mastering window. When you Export a stereo mix, you can select "master" as one of the destinations. That way, when the Export finishes, you are promptly switched over to the mastering screenset and you now have the workflow elements in front of you that will be much more conducive to the way people use Wavelab. 

• More metering options, and a palette to select them with
• Ability to move your meters to a second screen and save those positions
• Editing tools tailored to the process (i.e. no split comping needed here, so it is removed in this screenset)
• Single track window (or 7.1 if sorround Mastering) for easy editing (i.e. no Lanes to collapse or expand
• Bring all "process" tools to the forefront for easy view and access, such as nomalization, or other useful tools. 
• Fast output switcher for multiple monitor setups
• Upload/Posting capabilities
• Larger faders and other Sonar controls for easy accuracy when tweaking. 

I'm sure there's TONS more we could add to this, but this is something I think would be a great way to add the flexibility. 

I find this post very interesting.
Though I have only done demos in the past, I try to make them finished.
I'm now moving it fully finished projects. I wonder...
No one is talking about other plugins that clam to master technically (I would assume) in any DAW that will support them?
I use IK T-RackS Deluxe and Slate FG-X as say a final level before I export to MP3.
I guess my ears are my best tools.
 
So anyway, I have been using Cakewalk Sonar. 4 7 8 X3 and now Plat. But Craig is saying maybe down the road Sonar will be good for mastering.... I confused.  What else is new. ;)
 
Am I doing it wrong? what do I need to use?
 
Thanks!