I'm looking at Cubase (and others, but not so much)...and i notice they are touting new features we have long had in Sonar?
 
I mean, Cubase's notation looks way more advanced, but everything else, the same or behind.

I can't speak specifically about Cubase but it would not surprise me that each mature DAW would leap frog in some areas. I find the arranger section in Cubase to be interesting. If Sonar has something similar I haven't been able to find it.

There are certain areas where Cubase was ahead of Sonar, but overall as a product for what it could do, nothing compared to Sonar.  There is not another DAW on the market that can do what Sonar did, and be as integrated with Windows.  The one big knock on Sonar was there were still a lot of bugs, so not everything was flawless.
 
I do like Cubase's channel strip and it's the closest thing to pro channel that I've found out there.  Studio One follows the Pro Tools model that everything is inserted in a plug in bin.  Cubase also has some of the nicest sounding EQ's and compressors out there.  I'm not a big fan of the sound of Studio One's plugins.  To me they sound very dull and processed.
 
What drives me the most crazy is the fact that both Cubase and Studio One's UI is so Apple centric.  No full screen mode for Windows.  I have to use Auto Hide on the task bar, to go full screen on my laptop.  And the stupid archaic top menu driven interface that Windows got away from since Windows XP, but just seems to be built into Apple.
 
I secretly hope that Microsoft or somebody picks up the Cake IP and runs with it, but I'm not holding my breath, so I've decided to move on.  There are something I really love about Cubase, scoring being the no. 1 thing, but I won't lie that I miss Sonar.  I've had Studio One pro for a while and just used it for cross compatibility for my church's all Mac shop, but I always got better results with Sonar.  Studio One has a slick interface but it is a very immature product and it's sort of like Google Docs, they just give you enough of what you need, but when it comes to the meat and potatoes it really lacks.
 
One of the best new DAW's I've seen is Bitwig studio, and if it had more features that would probably be the DAW I would use.  The workflow blows Studio One away and the developers work very close with Microsoft so it's not so damned Apple centric in it's design.

Well - Let's say that not everybody has the same needs. I just "jumped ship" to Cubase last April after more than 10 years of using Sonar, because in my humble opinion MIDI handling and editing in Cubase is simply better than in Sonar.
 
On top of that Sonar had some things missing that make life comfortable for me. As an example - I use ARC 2 on my monitors, and TBIsone (and headphone correction) on my headphones, while exporting a song without any ARC 2 or TBIsone correction in it. In Cubase that's simple using the Control Room, while in Sonar I had to constantly switch routings. And that's only one of the things.
 
I won't go too deep into things that are more advanced in Cubase, but be assured they where enough for me to make the final decision to leave Sonar. Don't get me wrong - I still like Sonar very well, but as I have several platforms already and only a limited amount of time, I had to choose what platform I would concentrate on.
 
Lastly - one of the things that also made me "jump ship" was the monthly subscription. I also have a monthly subscription on some big graphical platforms, and I simply had to cut down on my monthly costs. For me it was more easy and less expensive to lay some money aside every now and then to do the yearly update on Cubase (This year €49.99), than pay several times that price for the yearly subscription of Sonar. It's hard economics, but I have to make some hard decisions sometimes.
 
At the end it's for all of us what we need. Sonar is (or was) an great platform, and I have worked many years with it and loved it. However, other platforms have their strength too, and at the end Cubase was just that bit better for my personal needs. 

I have Cubase on order so have been looking at some of the videos on their YouTube channel. I like the Chords track thing but I did see a video that shows how to record the output of a plugin. Obviously Sonar was awful in this area but when the issue was addressed it was a very simple affair. Though Cubase will record a plugin there are a few hoops to jump through. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

Grum.

Grumbleweed_
I have Cubase on order so have been looking at some of the videos on their YouTube channel. I like the Chords track thing but I did see a video that shows how to record the output of a plugin. Obviously Sonar was awful in this area but when the issue was addressed it was a very simple affair. Though Cubase will record a plugin there are a few hoops to jump through. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

Grum.

Not sure what you mean. I just start a new track and choose the softsynth I want to have, and the track is created, ready to play. You can even create several instances of that track in one go.
 
If you want more than one MIDI track (and separate audio output tracks) been created as multi-timbral setup, then you can use the synth as rack instrument. As an example: I have made a template for Omnisphere 2, Trilian and Stylus RMX, where there are multiple MIDI channels connected to the synthts. The MIDI channels are hidden in the mixer, so you only have the audio out visible (while MIDI stays visible in the track window of course). Very comfortable to work with.
 
If you mean a external synth, then yes - there is some work involved, but far from complicated.

Steinberg and Cakewalk were in direct competition for decades and constantly trying to outdo each other. They constantly leapfrogged each other in terms of features and which was best for this, that and the other. More recently the field has opened up and both Steinberg and Cakewalk were having to compete with all the new kids too. The new kids simply can't catch up with Cubase or Sonar because they have been around for longer and have been the standard setters for the DAW market. So right now Cubase will do some things better than Sonar and Sonar will do some things better than Cubase. However, Sonar has just fallen at the hurdle and may have broken its neck. So going forward, only Cubase is going to do things better.

JClosed

Grumbleweed_
I have Cubase on order so have been looking at some of the videos on their YouTube channel. I like the Chords track thing but I did see a video that shows how to record the output of a plugin. Obviously Sonar was awful in this area but when the issue was addressed it was a very simple affair. Though Cubase will record a plugin there are a few hoops to jump through. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

Grum.

Not sure what you mean. I just start a new track and choose the softsynth I want to have, and the track is created, ready to play. You can even create several instances of that track in one go.
 
If you want more than one MIDI track (and separate audio output tracks) been created as multi-timbral setup, then you can use the synth as rack instrument. As an example: I have made a template for Omnisphere 2, Trilian and Stylus RMX, where there are multiple MIDI channels connected to the synthts. The MIDI channels are hidden in the mixer, so you only have the audio out visible (while MIDI stays visible in the track window of course). Very comfortable to work with.
 
If you mean a external synth, then yes - there is some work involved, but far from complicated.

Sorry if I wasn't clear:
I meant recording the live (real time) audio output of a softsynth. You couldn't do that in Sonar up until recently but then they added an audio record button on the track folder and made it easy to do.
The tutorial video for Cubase shows a couple of methods of recording the audio from the softsynth, and neither of them was as simple as clicking on a record button!
 
Grum

I'm digging deeper and yea, there is a lot more to Cubase than I thought.  That 64bit audio engine thing has been in Sonar for years tho....
 
I was WRONG