I just quickly found and posted a few links I found on that individual's studio run down and some articles.  The studio seems to advertise Pro Tools, but since he seems to have used Sonar for some projects, I thought perhaps he either brought in hit own computer, or they also have Sonar and it is just not listed.  Many studios have multiple sets of recording software, to be as competitive as possible.
 
I did not pre-screen them for Sonar content - they were just meant to be a starting point for showing that there is info out there on the individual.
 
HOPEFULLY, there are additional links showing/describing his use of Sonar.  (I posted those in the wee hours, and didn't thoroughly go through them first).
 
Bob Bone
 

Yeah, I've seen/heard of studios beginning to stock more disparate DAW machines in case someone needed them. I like to see that.

Here is a great YouTube video of him - he's really talking about the Intel platform, but shows him with a Sonar project open:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi6xVRnSuv0
 
Bob Bone
 

I just worked on an LP where the artist brought in stuff he'd initially built up in Ableton. We exported it, got it up on the Pro Tools rig in the studio we were using, carried on from there in Pro Tools, then exported all that so I could bring it to my place to mix in Sonar. You know, WAV files.
 
This idea that Pro Tools is the only pro platform is bunk, seriously. It's common, and it's worth knowing, but that's about all I'd say. Only being able to deal with one DAW is hardly the hallmark of a working audio professional in the year 2014. I daresay it never was.
 
And you know, I quite like Pro Tools. I think it's reasonably good. You can make good records with it *as part of your overall set of tools). But all this angst about which DAW is the Real DAW is very misplaced. It's not like guys in big studios love it or anything. Frequently quite the opposite.

I don't think anyone is saying ProTools is the "only" Pro rig. It's just the Industry Standard, and assumed that every studio should have it or else they're not a real studio. I believe that much is not bunk, but a farce.
 
If I were totally schooled on PT, I probably would love it just as much, but I agree with others who have remarked that PT is typically behind on supporting the latest native hardware and OS (Windows, mostly) versions. Personally, I think the total abandonment of RTAS in light of AAX, another proprietary protocol is also a farce, and quite frankly, anyone who uses plug-ins, such as Waves, finance such firms to develop AAX versions of their plug-ins. So, my WUP $$ and purchase new Waves plug-ins partially went to building AAX versions of Waves plug-ins vs. going solely to Support or developing new, and innovative plug-ins. PT has enough of a stranglehold on the industry that plug-in makers feel the need to develop the next enforced trend of PT.
 
Although I've been told that AAX has drastically improved how plug-ins work within the PT framework, there's still, in my mind, no excuse for not opening PT up to VST2/3. I wouldn't have a problem with other DAW's supporting AAX, but as you can see, Avid has a tendency to simply abandon a protocol, such as RTAS with the most crude and baffling backward-support of RTAS (which is: Install PT10).
 
At least Sonar is willing to embrace newer plug-in versions with backward compatibility. That was a sell for me away from PT, not to mention PT is definitely not intuitive. I need training or manuals to use PT.