Tabs..... 

Another interface on a different tab. And start hybrid. 
 
Using multiple compressors (channel, bus, masterbus) is why the interface is what it is today... This can be simplified.

Tight control surface integration!!!
 
My dream control surface.
Motorized faders (minimum 9), pan, 3 band eq, and gain control nobs.
Transport and some plugin controls.
Visual feedback.
 
Did I mention under $500...

Sonar keyboard would be cool. You know prepared with all the default shortcuts and take the thinking out of the process. Like the pro tools one you can buy.

John
A graphic diagram of the routing with editable points to reroute or add tracks, buses, Pro Channel effects, sends, aux tracks and so on. All touchable and pen ready.

Yes, absolutely.  Bidule does something like this that would be a good point of reference.  I like your idea of adding representation of the USAGE ELEMENTS, not just the routing.  It would be nice to represent the actual amplitudes flowing through each path to make it obvious where clipping may be an issue.  Any way to visualize "audio clutter", redundant paths, spectrum collisions and so on would be extremely powerful.  I can easily imagine clicking on any point in the graph to instantly solo the signal passing through that point.  This would not be trivial by a long shot, but it could be transformational.
 
Here is an example of Bidule:
http://i.imgur.com/FTp5vl6.png

If I'm repeating something that has already been said, consider it an up vote.
 
- Well laid out, user configurable menu system.  Including context menus.
- Well laid out, user configurable toolbarS, as in multiple
- Overall UI consistency with strict adherence to the standards of the operating environment
- Macro facility - enable users to create macros that are assignable to toolbar buttons and hotkeys
- The ability to apply templates to tracks that already contain media items
- Make 'None' = 'None' instead of 'None' = 'Anything/Everything'
- Make tracks generic and capable of being any kind of track, bus or folder
- Provide a purpose built Monitor FX bin that is ignored during mixdown
- Provide a rock-solid, easy to use, per track MIDI mapping capability
- Provide a simplified, flexible, easy to use interface for setting up/configuring MIDI controllers
- Provide a monthly update system for delivering fixes/enhancements with full rollback capability
- Respect and maintain user preferences during updates
- Implement a MIDI step recorder that operates using arbitrary patterns of note values, including rests
 
Some of these are available in some DAWs, some aren't available at all in the 3 I'm most familiar with.
I'll add more later if I think of something else.
 
 

cparmerlee

John
A graphic diagram of the routing with editable points to reroute or add tracks, buses, Pro Channel effects, sends, aux tracks and so on. All touchable and pen ready.

Yes, absolutely.  Bidule does something like this that would be a good point of reference.  I like your idea of adding representation of the USAGE ELEMENTS, not just the routing.  It would be nice to represent the actual amplitudes flowing through each path to make it obvious where clipping may be an issue.  Any way to visualize "audio clutter", redundant paths, spectrum collisions and so on would be extremely powerful.  I can easily imagine clicking on any point in the graph to instantly solo the signal passing through that point.  This would not be trivial by a long shot, but it could be transformational.
 
Here is an example of Bidule:
http://i.imgur.com/FTp5vl6.png

I wish I could claim this as an original idea but I'm stealing it from Logic Platinum 5 for PC. Emagic called it the environment. Without it you couldn't do anything. Once set up you had total control. I don't want that. It would be a horror for new users to deal with. I would want it to be created automatically as you add tracks and buses inserts and so on. It would keep track of all routing and FX but it would be completely editable and printable. I really like your idea of showing the amplitude. That could be a real help. There are other things it could do but for now I would be very happy with what is presented so far. I do know it would be a chore to code but Sonar is already an object oriented program thus it could be built on that concept. Think how CW included insert points for aux tracks. Being able to do that in a graphical "environment" would give a lot of power to the user.
 
   

Anderton
This thread is loaded with intelligent and thought-provoking observations. I'm really glad I asked the question.

I'm delighted someone with influence at the bakery asked it.

Sanderxpander
1. A less cluttered interface

Permit me to take the opposite view here.
The only way to unclutter the interface is to hide stuff away.
I prefer having as much visible as possible.

jpetersen
The only way to unclutter the interface is to hide stuff away.

No, that is not the only way.  Another way is to simply not have 5 "legacy" ways of doing essentially the same thing.
 
And this problem is not unique to SONAR.  StudioOne, which is a much newer product, already has ambiguous nonsense where there are "effects buses" and "regular buses" with no meaningful differences.  There is no reason to make such a distinction.  One type of bus should accomplish everything anybody needs.  Then there are ambiguities between bouncing clips versus tracks.  I'm sure a person can argue why such distinctions are essential.  Such arguments are where the clutter comes from because the developers throw up their hands and say "OK, we'll just leave everything in."
 
Some software architects refer to "orthogonal design" where a single architecture elegantly solves multiple problems.  The DAWs I have seen are anything but orthogonal.