Stepping back a little, I believe there is a big picture here. Having spent 4 decades in software development roles one way or another, I had a concern when X2 had so many bugs and so few patch cycles. This made me wonder if the SONAR code was becoming essentially un-maintainable. That is, I wondered if Cakewalk had a fear of making any changes because the code base was considered too fragile.
That can be a serious concern because if the code base is archaic or fragile, that works like a boat anchor on everything you want to do in the future.
I am delighted to see that obviously my concerns were not well founded, and the prior strategy for scheduling of patches was not born out of concern about a fragile base. There can certainly be many other reasons for not doing frequent patch cycles, and there is no point looking back upon that. The fact that Cakewalk can put out three substantial patches in such a short period with essentially no regression issues is a very strong indicator that the development environment is modern, the codebase is solid, and they have a great platform on which to build.
With such a complex product, that does not happen by accident. It is always the result off great discipline and good long-term vision guiding product architecture.