AT
 
There are plenty of companies that make hardware controllers to fit your pocket and needs, except they all depend upon a layer of software to work w/ SONAR.  That would be a lot cheaper to fix than sinking another $250,000 in a hardware solution that keeps failing.

Thant's a reasonable outlook.
 
Maybe the question asked should be "why is there no high-end software solution for Sonar integration?"  Making Sonar better integrate with existing hardware would be a plus!
 
Maybe that also comes down to expected market share, and return on investment.
 
Hate to necro this old idea, but maybe the best start for a high-end software solution could begin with a cross platform migration of Sonar to the Mac.  Allowing studios and artists to collaborate from the same DAW, regardless of computer platform, begins with eliminating the 'Windows only' label.
 
But we all know how that chapter began and ended...
 
Turns out that one of Sonar's greatest strengths is that it is tightly wrapped around Windows.  That possibly becomes the greatest weakness, because that makes it a very difficult and expensive undertaking for cross platform development.
 
And no matter how good Sonar is, or ever becomes, it seems that the 'Windows only' label is s limiting factor in it's marketability.
 
Bottom line I am personally happy with Windows, and don't plan to go anywhere else.  But there are others just starting out that might understandably make that part of the decision process.

Starise
It seems we have extreme views at each end of the issue, and comments that amount to blanket statements that are intended to make it appear everyone in that group is on board with an idea.
 
Audioicon, the statement you quote above is only partially true since we have  hardware manufacturers who have set out to design a good software/hardware integration in hardware/software they make. Even they make their hardware to work with other software. They are savy enough to do BOTH. Case in point- I own a Presonus interface that works wonderfully with Sonar, yet it integrates slightly better with Studio One. Since this is a one time setup the slightly less intuitive setup isn't a problem for me. I mean, I do it once and I'm done. I tend to use Sonar more often than Studio One. The only real difference to me was SO seen my inputs/outputs and identified them. Setting buffers was slightly easier. Both setups are no brainers for me though.
 
From this perspective I see no real benefit to spending huge amounts of money on the  R&D of dedicated hardware. I CAN however see a benefit to Tascam/Cake making the existing hardware more friendly to Sonar if that is possible.How would we do that though? What is unfriendly now? And what do you consider to be high end hardware? Both Tascam and Roland have a large prosumer base. What would you like to see integrated? I/O is already integrated as  ASIO or WMA drivers. As I mentioned Cake is working close with Microsoft to make sure Sonar works with all new I/O tech Microsoft comes out with. So far as I know, Cakewalk is the front runner on this. 
 
Avid has their market, Sonar and the others have their market. Many large studios are suffering. Bad for Avid. Good for Sonar.Why buy a system that ties you to dedicated hardware? 
 
So what would the kind of integration you want look like? How is this an advantage to you or anyone else?

Great input, thanks!

Here is my story:

My first Interface was a Presonous FirePod, before than, I was recording directly to Hard-disk systems, no computer. All my sequences was done on hardware sequencer.

When I started using the FirePod, I struggled with integration, drivers were terrible at the time, the entire system was buggy. I spent more time trying to make things work than making music.

Then I got an MAudio 1814 and things were very improved, later the Mackie Onxy and now the RME UFX Plus.

Why did I ask this questions/make this post.

Given that the RME cost me close to $3000.00, I started to ask, what if TasCam had something like this for Sonar, which is not exclusive but tightly integrated? 

While RME is the greatest is terms to stability, it's way overly complicated, nothing is Obvious, and their ToTalMix routing system is the worse I have ever seen. I started spending more time reading their manuals, and eventually have been able to use the systems as needed.

So what would the kind of integration you want look like? How is this an advantage to you or anyone else?

 1) I would have a hardware (not exclusive) but design for seamless integration, meaning I will spend more time         making music. Better compatibility, auto routing and input/output assignments, driver updates with Sonar releases, optimization tips that are design for maximum performance with Sonar.

 2) Please, look at the Sonar forum and read all the issues people are having with getting things to work.

 3) Large user based, meaning a lot of users may have the same hardware or setup, so you get better knowledge         base.
 
I am sitting here thinking, what if RME Acquired Cakewalk? 

I posted this question because TasCam makes this stuff, this is their bread and butter, digital recording and so I am under the impression that part of the interest here will be some integration between the two entity.

Audioicon

Okay, fair enough. But you mention the above which is what I keep asking myself, honestly.
How and why Cakewalk/Sonar isn't up there as you described.

So why isn't Cakewalk/Sonar being used in mostly large expensive studios? Or; a version of Sonar targeting that king of audience and the rest of us can get there if we can.

Ins't this what the different versions are for.

You do know there is/was the Pro-tools LE and Pro-tools MPowered/MBox.

So what does your post saw about Sonar/Cakewalk target market? 

I guess my conclusion here is that Cakewalk was born and raised in a certain category and will remain there forever.

Because nobody, well most will not buy high End integrated systems for Sonar given it's targeted Market. I get it.

 
What you are addressing now is a "self esteem' issue for DAW users.  It really doesn't matter if the software does what you want.  No need to keep up with the Jones's.
 
But that has already been dismissed in countless other threads about Pro Tools vs. whatever.
 
Professional recordings can be produced with Sonar.  Or Pro Tools, or anything else.  It's really the music that matters, not what you record it on.  There is no DAW with a "Talent" button yet.
 
If you make a hit record, your audience will not care what you used to record and mix it on.

There are some great statements in this thread but the one I've seen most keeps cropping up: "build better compatibility between products ..".
That's the answer.

abacab
If you make a hit record, your audience will not care what you used to record and mix it on.

This is such misleading and overloaded statement.

Why does athletes advertise shoes? Why does my Rhode Microphone has the BG's on the page? Oh, and why is Quincy Jones advertising Heineken Beer?

Maybe you think people don't care, and to some extent not everyone cares but people do.

It's funny because Photoshop is synonymous with Photo editing and Pro-tools with hit music.

Sonar is a professional powerhouse, nobody doubts that but the idea that no one cares is as detrimental to any process a using deprecated systems.

Every gathering , Thanksgiving, Christmas, I have to say. "No it's not Pro-tools, it's Sonar." People pay attention to this sort of information which I am left to conclude that Cakewalk has found itself in a room with an audience and that's never ever going to change, like the concept of religion.

The community colleges in my city all have courses with degrees in Audio Production, wanna know what it is? You guess. 

My conclusion here, based on all the responses, is that the ship have already sailed, we have a user base that is mostly satisfied and pleased.

There are products and tech gibberish and their is perceptions and reputation, trust me people do care.

Audioicon

abacab
If you make a hit record, your audience will not care what you used to record and mix it on.

This is such misleading and overloaded statement.

I think what he's saying is that the listener doesn't care. Most of them probably don't even know what a DAW is, let alone care about the means of production. The only people who might care are other DAW owners.

@Audioicon
In Germany the most people say, that you need a MAC for making music. You cannot make music with windows. In german studios Windows is a NoGo. They work with ProTools or Logic.
At least in germany the most people buy HighEnd Hardware for making music with a MAC.
 
HighEND is ambiguos. It means also High End Audio Quality - but also 100% rock solid hardware, for example in Radio stations, TV stations, Live Gigs ... ans so on. You cannot reboot a computer during a broadcast live stream because an audiodriver or computer has issues. And it must not be an unreliable hardware during recoring the best guitar solo of your customer.
 
I would also love to see, that more professional studios would use SONAR.
We have often people in our studio, who hardly believe what SONAR can do. But they have never heard from Cakewalk or SONAR.
 

Anderton

Audioicon

abacab
If you make a hit record, your audience will not care what you used to record and mix it on.

This is such misleading and overloaded statement.

I think what he's saying is that the listener doesn't care. Most of them probably don't even know what a DAW is, let alone care about the means of production. The only people who might care are other DAW owners.

That's because they all think it's Pro-Tools and every good looking picture is Photoshop. 

Just giving you a hard time.

THambrecht
@Audioicon
In Germany the most people say, that you need a MAC for making music. You cannot make music with windows. In german studios Windows is a NoGo. They work with ProTools or Logic.
At least in germany the most people buy HighEnd Hardware for making music with a MAC.
 
HighEND is ambiguos. It means also High End Audio Quality - but also 100% rock solid hardware, for example in Radio stations, TV stations, Live Gigs ... ans so on. You cannot reboot a computer during a broadcast live stream because an audiodriver or computer has issues. And it must not be an unreliable hardware during recoring the best guitar solo of your customer.
 
I would also love to see, that more professional studios would use SONAR.
We have often people in our studio, who hardly believe what SONAR can do. But they have never heard from Cakewalk or SONAR.
 

My opinion is biased but I will say I believe Sonar is one of the best DAW out there. For me it all started to happen around Sonar 8.5.

Which again, makes me wonder and we can beat the "dead horse" all day. But Why is Sonar NOT used in most massive projects?

The only thing that comes to mind is that Sonar started as a software for everyday Musicians and it simply stayed that way every since, even though that is not true.

It should have been divided and back by hardware a long time ago but this is just an opinion of mine. 

Using Sonar with RME, I have done some super intensive task, like really intensive with no freezes, before Sonar will just shutdown with no Warning.

Audiocon, you make some good points, but to get one problem out of the way - ProTools.
 
ProTools is used in most professional studios today because it is the standard.  They were first with digital recording and have never screwed up enough to warrant users changing DAWs in a pro setting.  Not to mention the amount of hardware already tied up.  I just had an owner complaining to me about having to decide to upgrade his software's hardware dongle.  He was talking about spending 10 grand, I think.  But they haven't screwed up, most pros learn on ProTools and just never leave.  Kinda like MS in offices.  If you do office work at a firm, you ain't gonna spend an extra $1000 per station for a new OS that your people will be less efficient on for a while.
 
But it seems to me Cake had an idea that touch would be the new controller standard.  That is why they changed the look and functionality on SONAR, I think - more touch friendly and not a million drop down menus.  And I love working with touch - XY pads are the bomb on touch and even better than joysticks (tho not as cool looking or named).  But there are a lot of functions that don't work so well on touch - very small precise control movements are better served with a mouse, typing is better on keyboard (duh), but knobs and sliders work fine with touch if done right.  One thing that is much better tactilely are faders, since you can feel them and not have to keep your eyes glued to the screen.  The touch sliders (w/ LEDs) on the maschine Jam are an excellent alternative means of fadering.  If they were a little bit longer they would be even better.
 
I published an idea for a controller many moons ago in SOS, for synths, mostly, and it was based on a touchscreen (long before there was anything commercially available) with some knobs and a Faderport style fader offset from the screen.  That is still a good idea, I think.  But in that case it had an integrated computer, which is the way for CAKE to go for a holistic system.  A computer tuned for and that comes with SPLt installed (Hello Jim!), for stability.  A 27 inch or so touchscreen with, say, 6 knobs and a moving fader (or touch slider like Jam) built into the case of the touchscreen.  That would be something to set SONAR apart from the DAW herd and give the pro crowd a run, or at least but a scare on 'em.   And great for home use, too.  Plus, it wouldn't break the bank to design, and they could sell the Screen controller separately for other DAW users, too.  It still might be a bust, but at least it wouldn't be the same ole stuff again and again that has failed.