Ok I've seen this issue discussed quite a few times but at the end of it all, it never seems to be clear. 
 
I would really like some clarification on this whole "true mono"/stereo processing thing w/in Sonar.  Something like this seems critical. 
 
I've noticed that when I work w/ people who use other programs there seems to be a different width or depth to the sound.  Even w/ no mix or anything.  Not that it sounds "better" necessarily.  Just wider.  Bigger.  I thought maybe my mind was playing tricks on me, but maybe the way Sonar processes mono/stereo tracks could have something to do w/ it.  

yes, we need a baker to clarify this

What are your meters telling you? Are they exactly equal, or do they favor one side or the other. If they're displaying straight up the middle and you're not hearing it straight up the middle, I think I'd start looking at your monitoring situation. What happens if you swap the cables going to your monitors? Do your monitors have volume controls or eq adjustments on the back that might not be set the same?

bladetragic
Ok I've seen this issue discussed quite a few times but at the end of it all, it never seems to be clear. 
 
I would really like some clarification on this whole "true mono"/stereo processing thing w/in Sonar.  Something like this seems critical. 
 
I've noticed that when I work w/ people who use other programs there seems to be a different width or depth to the sound.  Even w/ no mix or anything.  Not that it sounds "better" necessarily.  Just wider.  Bigger.  I thought maybe my mind was playing tricks on me, but maybe the way Sonar processes mono/stereo tracks could have something to do w/ it.  

Can anyone in this sitation - different audible results in different DAWs - confirm that the pan laws being used are exactly the same?  Even with lots of mono tracks they're likely to be feeding stereo busses. 
 

There are two different issues here.  Pan laws and perceived stereo imbalances have nothing to do with true mono.  Assuming you don't have major issues with your monitoring, it's perfectly possible to use whatever panning law you like to get a certain result.
 
True mono is only a question of how Sonar implements VST plugins.  Looking at the threads which I linked to above, I believe it has to do with limiting the number of inputs to the plugin to one (rather than keeping two available but only using the left).  I'm not sure why it isn't possible to simply automatically switch to one input when switching the track to mono, but both Cubase and Reaper require the user to manually indicate how many in/outs they want.  In Cubase you have to create a mono track, and in Reaper apparently there's something to do with "pins" to control the inputs to the plugin.

CakeAlexS
The problem with mono discussions is that the arguments are always one sided ;)(Apols in advance)...

Yes and people never direct their opinions through the appropriate channels.

brian brock
There are two different issues here.  Pan laws and perceived stereo imbalances have nothing to do with true mono.  Assuming you don't have major issues with your monitoring, it's perfectly possible to use whatever panning law you like to get a certain result.
 
True mono is only a question of how Sonar implements VST plugins.  Looking at the threads which I linked to above, I believe it has to do with limiting the number of inputs to the plugin to one (rather than keeping two available but only using the left).  I'm not sure why it isn't possible to simply automatically switch to one input when switching the track to mono, but both Cubase and Reaper require the user to manually indicate how many in/outs they want.  In Cubase you have to create a mono track, and in Reaper apparently there's something to do with "pins" to control the inputs to the plugin.

Please define "true mono". 

This is getting very spinal tap :)

+1. I also want clarification from the bakers.

John

brian brock
There are two different issues here.  Pan laws and perceived stereo imbalances have nothing to do with true mono.  Assuming you don't have major issues with your monitoring, it's perfectly possible to use whatever panning law you like to get a certain result.
 
True mono is only a question of how Sonar implements VST plugins.  Looking at the threads which I linked to above, I believe it has to do with limiting the number of inputs to the plugin to one (rather than keeping two available but only using the left).  I'm not sure why it isn't possible to simply automatically switch to one input when switching the track to mono, but both Cubase and Reaper require the user to manually indicate how many in/outs they want.  In Cubase you have to create a mono track, and in Reaper apparently there's something to do with "pins" to control the inputs to the plugin.

Please define "true mono". 

I'm merely making guesses based on information from the threads I linked above.  Here is a quote from Universal Audio about removing the mono versions of their plugins:

More Detail for UAD v6.3.2
 

• Mono VST versions are not included for new UAD plug-ins:
  The monophonic VST versions of UAD plug-ins that can be optionally installed — those with "(m)" in the plug-in name — are no longer developed for new UAD plug-ins. The mono VST versions of prior UAD plug-ins can still be optionally installed for compatibility with older sessions that contain UAD (m) plug-ins.
  Note: The standard VST plug-ins (which support stereo and mono configurations) do not consume more UAD DSP when loaded in supported DAWs that use true-mono processing (Logic Pro, Pro Tools, Cubase, Nuendo). However, some supported DAWs (Live and Sonar) do not use true-mono processing on mono signals.
  Additionally, some UAD plug-ins do not use less DSP even in a true-mono configuration. For details about mono vs. stereo DSP usage, see the UAD Instance Count Chart.
  

 
I believe that is where the phrase "true mono" has entered the lexicon.
 
Given the information in the links above, I have guessed that a) Sonar's implementation of mono plugins is to feed a left-only channel to a stereo plugin, and take only its left output, and that b) something in the VST architecture makes it impossible to dynamically switch the number of inputs, requiring Cubase and Reaper (for example) to have relatively inconvenient means of creating this mysterious mono which is of the truth-maintaining variety.
 
To test my supicions, I have just inserted a plugin (Izotope Alloy 2) into a mono track in Cubase and Sonar.  I notice that, in Cubase, Alloy's L and R level meters move in tandem, while in Sonar, only the Left meter moves.  This, I believe, somewhat confirms that Sonar's implementation is more or less to feed the stereo plugin the Left channel only.  To conclude that Cubase is somehow communicating to the plugin that its input is mono, I consider that UAD stereo plugins automatically switch to lower-DSP mono versions when used on mono tracks in Cubase.
 
Whether Sonar uses more CPU for native effects on mono tracks than does Cubase is not something I can be sure of, but it seems probable since it is sending a silence to the right channel of the plugin, and the plugin has no way of knowing whether that silence will suddenly change.  Maybe VST3 plugins are different in that way?  Anyway there's a lot of VST 2 plugins out there.
 
I believe that this issue has other consequences.  For example, I remember that the Console emulator buzz bug in Sonar X3c only happened on mono tracks, and that the buzz was somehow metered or heard only in the right channel.  I think Alloy 2 also has at times behaved strangely because of the mono implementation.
 
I'm not sure that Cakewalk can or should change what they're doing, because the implementations of "true mono" in Cubase and Reaper seem kludgy, and Sonar has a certain simplicity about it.  Clearly there's a lot of confusion about mono and stereo already.  I think it might be possible for them to implement a sort of "wrapper" which would allow one to use true mono, but that too would have lots of kinks and quirks.