sharke

BenMMusTech
Sonar's (I refuse to call it CBB)

Why? That's what it's called now. Might as well refer to things by their actual name, yes? 

Well, not to be pedantic but it's CbB not CBB.

There are so many tradeoffs, variables, and subjective ideas about what a mixer should do that it's impossible to judge them except by your own standards. For example I find track icons so much better than reading text for parsing tracks, but other people think track icons look cartoonish and "unprofessional" (whatever that means). Long-throw faders are great if you use a mouse, but who cares if you're using a control surface? If you're working exclusively in the console in a single screen, then having a gain knob means you don't need to go to track view. But if you have a dual monitor setup with console in one and TV in the other, it doesn't matter. Etc. etc.
 
I recently wrote an article for Pro Sound News about how I'd like to see modular software so you could use program A's console in program B, buy Sonar's Loop Construction View for use in your loop-challenged other program, etc. In other words, the entire DAW would be one giant host for plug-ins, except the plug-ins wouldn't be just effects and plug-ins, but fundamental sections of a DAW. For example, how hard would it really be to incorporate something like a Loop Construction View in another program? You just need to get audio into it and out of it again...and hopefully, have a way to insert Pitch markers. Noel could probably figure it out 
 
It will probably never happen, but what a beautiful world this would be if it did...

I'm honestly not a huge fan of any current DAW mixer. I think they're all pretty much holdovers from another age -- and for whatever reason, we're all still stuck in this endless bog of skeuomorphism and we need new thinking. I admire the developers that at least try to move beyond the old models, even though I'm not sure we're "there" yet.
 
Having said that, I totally agree with the comments that the BEST mixer is the one that YOU can really use. And everyone will have a different set of preferences/needs.
 
But if I HAVE to use an "old school" DAW mixer (for lack of a better term), I've got to hand it to Studio One, with several excellent features, borrowed from many other DAWs. It has a lot of flexibility, great functionality (from FFT and plugin adjustments built-in) to thoughtful details like gain reduction metering as well. Overall, it's borrowed some great features from every other DAW on the market and hits a nice balance.
 
And if I have to give an award for best future-thinking in DAW design, I have to give that to Bitwig.
 
But Cakewalk's mixer is indeed very powerful and full-featured, and does the job well. If it works great for YOU, then it's the best one. Looking forward to seeing where it goes.

P.S. And I have to say that some DAWs go backwards in design and usability IMO... one great example is Cubase, which took a big step back with their poor roll-out of their new interface paradigm starting in version 7 I believe, back in 2012. And even today, at version 9.5, it is STILL not nearly as good as it should be, even though it's now more technically powerful. I still find it ugly and unpleasant, although it's made progress from its sad low of version 7. Hope that Cakewalk doesn't try to do a wholesale replacement of their mixer, but take a more gradual, evolutionary approach. And then if they want to try a NEW experimental concept of mixer (which would be cool), that they implement it in addition to the older mixer, not as a replacement.

ionecake
I'm honestly not a huge fan of any current DAW mixer. I think they're all pretty much holdovers from another age -- and for whatever reason, we're all still stuck in this endless bog of skeuomorphism and we need new thinking. I admire the developers that at least try to move beyond the old models, even though I'm not sure we're "there" yet.

and this as well.  I guess I should have mentioned that I don't mix in the console view with a mouse.  I haven't done that in ages.  It faster for me to add and edit the automation right in the clips view (or is the track view?). 
 
My thoughts about the visual was when I do use the console for whatever reason I fnd that Cakewalk and Reaper's console  graphics don't bother my eyes as quickly as Studio One.  For me it's the color of the background around the faders and between the channels.  Cakewalks seems to be ever so slightly "rounded" between channels where as Studio One is "flat". I've tried changing the colors of the channels in Studio One but to no luck. 
I should also mention that I have vision problems so it's more a me problem then a DAW company problem
 
Anyways, just my .02

conklin
I've tried changing the colors of the channels in Studio One but to no luck. 
I should also mention that I have vision problems so it's more a me problem then a DAW company problem
 
Anyways, just my .02

On my Studio One, when on the console, I just select the track, then click the track name and the color pallette pops up and I pick a color.  If you're in the editor, there's a little bar to the left of the track number that will change the colors there.