Hello everyone:
Given the age of Cakewalk and Sonar in general, why is there not some High End dedicated Hardware that is proprietary for Sonar? Pro-tools and Motu comes to mind.

I saw this coming along when Roland Acquired Cakewalk sometime ago.

As a pragmatist, I tend to focus more on possibilities than limitations. And I feel if there were hardware to match industry standard it will create a very tight integration for Sonar.

My Refrigerator says GE, but I recently discovered everything in it is made by Samsung. Can't Gibson do this or talk to the folks at RME?

Again, like Pro-tools HD, Cakewalk/Sonar HD completely configured for Sonar.

Thoughts?

Plain and simple there would not be enough of a market for it. 
Manufactures are going to build for the highest user base. And even at that, DAW users requiring something that intigrated would be in the 1% or less range of all the people using the software.  
And because DAW's are always updating how long would the hardware be good for? 
There are a few control surfaces that people are using, 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/I-am-wondering-what-control-surfaces-are-compatable-with-splat-m3661544.aspx
 
 

There was the V-Studio 700.
 

Ok...interesting question. Let's look at this from another angle, 'what is high end?' for a start, and 'do you need a high end interface secondly?'

In the bad old days of early digital and even pre-early digital...think 1977 when the first digital recording was made, converters were basic, unless you stumped up for some boutique converters, or indeed you joined the dark side of the force and brought into the Pro Fools rubbish. In reality what we're talking about is the dynamic range of the converters, and jitter or the clock signal that syncs the audio throughout the analogue to digital and vice versa signal path. The dynamic range of very early converters was about 96db or 16 bit as we know it. In comparison vinyl was only 64db. Now no early converters could take advantage of the full 96db range, and indeed even the best converters today cannot take advantage of the full dynamic range of 24 bit converters. For example most the prosumer Presonus and Motu stuff now offer about 118db of dynamic range, up from about 112-115 which was the standard about 7 years. I'm not sure what the high end convertors are offering in terms of dynamic range...if anyone knows?? 
 
Now the pertinent question is...do you need anymore dynamic range from your converters? and the answer is if you are an average Sonar user probably not, and this is why Sonar is such a great program...Cakewalk have implemented a software solution. This is the 64bitfp mix engine and their upsampling paradigm. By using these concepts within Sonar, you're creating almost unlimited internal dynamic range, and you're eliminating the problem of time based effects disappearing into the noise floor or sounding grainy at the end of the tails. This is why in the past you needed high end converters, because they helped mask and eliminate this problem. 
 
There are a couple of caveats, firstly back to jitter. Jitter is the tiny errors that form between poorly synced ADDA hardware and converters, and can be heard in time based effects and when the noise floor is higher than the output of the audio signal - say if you were mixing an individual instrument. Now if you have a large recording session, and everything was being laid down in a recording studio all at once...say a classical orchestra or indeed a rock band...then the likely hood of jitter coming to bite you in the bum is great, but again if you're an average Sonar user...this is not a problem with prosumer converters. You could easily record a band, probably not a close mic orchestra, and with Sonar's 'software' fix you won't have a problem. The issue is, if you start wanting to add in hardware based effects to the mix as you mix, and this is really the second caveat...by not understanding the digital medium, and the difference between celluloid and zeros and ones...the contemporary audio engineer/producer work within a hybrid paradigm, where they neither commit fully to the analogue medium or the digital medium. Furthermore, this is creating confusion as to converters and high end vs prosumer or the point of your question really. You see, if you're going to record with an analogue mind set...this is high quality outboard analogue equipment into a DAW, you need all the dynamic range your high end converters can muster, because all the stuff we enjoy within music...the tape compression and harmonic distortion gets lost or destroyed by both the lack of dynamic range...or it disappears into the noise floor once we convert our master file into 16bit...something I don't recommend by the way...16bit anything is obsolete, or the jitter actually makes the things we love to hear in our music sound distorted and grainy.
 
Hopefully this answers the OP, to conclude just in case they don't. Sonar doesn't need to create high end audio interfaces or indeed does any other company for Sonar...as I've said, unless you're doing true proper high definition audio or indeed you're transferring Beatle tapes and the like into the digital realm...high end anything is nothing more than a marketing ploy used to give teenage boys and now some girls gear envy. What this does is hold back emerging talent from really harnessing the potential of our technological eco system software instruments...Sonar. I will have to do some research to see how the other big DAWs have implemented a software solution to a hardware problem, but I think Sonar are still ahead of the curve in regards to this matter...I mean it wasn't until 2012 or around about then (off the top of my head) that Pro Fools introduced 64bitfp. Sonar introduced 64bitfp in version 6 wasn't it??, of course Pro Fools had their proprietary 48bit hardware fix. 
 
Ben         

My opinion might be found in three words.  Vision, Focus, and Success.  To me, vision is a function of what I can see (customers needs, product, sales, employee satisfaction, profit, goals and the like).  Focus should be on what I can do, need to do (resources, tasks and the like) and bridging the difference to make the vision happen.   One can argue this point, but to me success - is the long term performance indicator of the first two - with customer expectations and needs being met, and dare I say, delighted enough to look forward to buying more of what the company produces best. 
 
We do not know what goes on in the business planning meetings at Cakewalk. Their engineering plan portion might just have a revolutionary hardware design that costs nothing to design and produce, and eclipse every hardware supplier out there.  They might know it will take 3 years, and have learned from other hardware manufacturers not to let plans be talked about in case that they can't make 1 of 100 points work.  The music hardware industry is re-pleat with 'I know that's what I said, but sorry, I could not make it happen'.  I for one would truly be delighted if they did have something great cooking in the hardware arena. But if they don't,  I suspect they have put their vision into a realistic plan, and are beating cheeks to the finish line so to speak. So that, they make good money from a good product with a loyal customer base that just wants their DAW software to make their music dream a reality, and maybe have fun doing it. 
 
I think its a bit off to say 'we can do anything' - a four foot tall person might not make the best center in the NBA.  It just might be better to say 'this is what I can do, want to do, and will do'.  But hey, that's me.  I can probably write a good song, and want to write a hit song, but... it ain't happened yet.   :o)
 
Take care!

It seems to me that a better direction to go in would be to simplify and enhance Cakewalk's ability to take advantage of the available controllers. ACT is available,  but to be honest, it's a little confusing to set up. Key bindings are available, but again this is a little difficult for some users. AZSLOW's solution is great, but again requires some programming and understanding of MIDI control. It seems to me that making the process of setting up/mapping a controller in a way that gives maximum useability for Sonar would be the way to go. Novation's Automap program and Arturia's MIDI Control center come to mind. These programs actually recognize the controller that is plugged in, and present
a graphic to assist in setting up the buttons and knobs. It's helpful, but you still have to have knowledge of Cakewalk (at least in the case of Arturia's MIDI Control Center). This method world require some investment in programming, but would relieve the company of the cost of developing and marketing another VS700 like product knowing that the potiential market is limited. 
 
My two cents worth,

tenfoot
There was the V-Studio 700.

They still work great too. 

I just wish I could get signed W10 drivers :\

I wish I had grabbed a VS-100 too though.

I would think something a little less extreme than the V-Studio 700 would sell way better and be cheaper to make. If there was a OG Faderport style controller with Transport, 1 Fader, 12 encoder (for EQ) I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

RSMCGUITAR
I would think something a little less extreme than the V-Studio 700 would sell way better and be cheaper to make. If there was a OG Faderport style controller with Transport, 1 Fader, 12 encoder (for EQ) I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

If I didn't have a VS-700 I'd grab a OG Faderport and use AZ's plugin. As would most people ;)

There's very little market share for this type of hardware.

I appreciate all the input. First, this post has nothing to do with Pro-tools. I mention Pro-tools because they have dedicated hardware for their Software, Motu (Digital Performer).

Gibson owns Cakewalk, they also own Tascam, so why will it be far fetched to make a dedicated Interface or Hardware for Sonar?

Dedicated Hardware means better integration and less problems for users.