Does Sonar X3 sound good enough and has the necessary plugins and synths to record and mix a pro quality album?

One of my friends makes full fledged studio quality albums with free recording software on Linux, so Im sure that Sonar is more than capable of that. But then again he is like a music production wizard.

Well that depends on some other factors as well like your instruments, your hardware and most importantly your own skill but yes... Sonar is a professional DAW.
 
You also have to consider the different packages. X3 (the base version) doesn't come with nearly as much stuff as Producer or Studio BUT does have everything you NEED (like instruments and effects). It just may be a little harder to get the results you want and you may be a little more limited creatively. Still people have been recording pro albums on FAR less for many  many years.
 
With the higher end packages you get duplicate, triplicate and sometimes MORE variants on specific plug ins and instruments giving you much more flexibility. You also get the ProChannel with those versions which makes mixing much easier (IMO) and the PC effects are very very nice considering the low cost.
 
Thing is you have to learn how and when to use them. X3 can do pretty much most anything in regards to audio production. Getting it to actually DO those things is the hard part but really no harder than any other DAW.
 
hmm... I'd say welcome to the forum but it seems you've been here for quite a while. Seems like an odd question considering that fact. :-/

The Beatles recorded Sgt Peppers on a 4 track tape recorder. Sonar is infinitely more powerful than that. Its up to the writer, performer, recording engineer, and mastering engineer to make your music sound good. Often those roles are filled by one person.... YOU! Perhaps your wizard friend could give you some help. Even though he uses a different tool, the process is still the same. 

I think they had two of them, Studer Revox if I'm not mistaken.
And it probably doesn't hurt to have George Martin at your side.

But to your question with a competent engineer and good outboard equipment I have no doubt you can.
WSS

Thanks for answering. Well, the reason I ask this question is, studios use Pro Tools and I wonder, is there a reason other than the fact that Pro Tools is a standard, that engineers use it in studio? Does Sonar have an inferior over all sound due to the fact that it is a Native DAW and doesn't use physical processing cards? Is there an aspect of Sonar that is "sub standard" compared to Pro Tools etc?

ProTools has a very nice workflow for audio especially (or so most people feel). Back when PCs were a  LOT less powerful, their expansion cards allowed people to use a ton of plugins while native systems were stuck with a few, or low quality ones. These days, that isn't such an issue, but ProTools is by now the de facto standard for larger recording studios. Many production style studios use Cubase, Logic and yes, Sonar. Reaper is gaining some popularity, and if I'm not mistaken Colby Caillat's hit of 2012(?) "Call Me Maybe" was done entirely in Reason.
 
In other words, your own skill in composition, production and mixing are much more likely to hamper you than any inherent lack of sound quality on Sonar's part.

daveny5 compares it to a 4 track.  I'll go farther.  It's way more powerful than a state-of-the-art 1980s recording studio.  I've done it the Old Way with patch cables and tape machines and SONAR gives you infinitely more versatility.  Helps to know what you're trying to do of course.
 
That said since I don't use SONAR every day I spend a fair amount of time muttering "now what happened to the sound?" but I did that trying to run a big console in a studio in 80s. :-)
 
CAF

zblip
Thanks for answering. Well, the reason I ask this question is, studios use Pro Tools and I wonder, is there a reason other than the fact that Pro Tools is a standard, that engineers use it in studio? Does Sonar have an inferior over all sound due to the fact that it is a Native DAW and doesn't use physical processing cards? Is there an aspect of Sonar that is "sub standard" compared to Pro Tools etc?

I did quite a few classical projects at Maricam Studios in Santa Fe, which was based around a big $$ Pro Tools system. We used it for tracking, but it drove me nuts trying to edit (this was before Pro Tools implemented features like faster-than-real-time bounce and clip envelopes). So after tracking, I'd take the audio files back to my studio, and do the editing/mixing in Sonar. One of the CDs won an award, so I guess it was good enough
 
You can do a pro level album in just about any DAW these days, even the lower-level ones have more power than the studios of yesteryear. I prefer Sonar because of the workflow, ease of use, and versatility - no matter what kind of project I need to do, Sonar can handle it.

Thanks Mr Anderton! BTW, since you are in the loop, any chances of having better video handling in Sonar in the near future?