Indeed… But the fade can only extend over the length of the first event.
If the left or right edges of an audio part fall in the middle of one of the events that are inside the part, then I usually get a click. This happens a lot. So what I have to do is:
- open the part editor,
- find the audio event that is being “interrupted” by the part boundary,
- shorten that event so it falls within the part boundary,
- apply a fade to the audio event -
- close the part editor.
- done
If I subsequently change the part’s length, there is a good chance I will have to repeat the above procedure to locate the new click.
Now compare the above with this:
- Use handle to adjust fade in / out for the part.
- done
Plus, once the fade is set, I would be free to change the length of the audio part without ever needing to reset the fade.
Simples! No? 
How have you not gone crazy with copy/pasting? Lovely way of:
Well i select them with selection tool, snap set to bars.Easy!
(Version 1 of this post made no sense whatsoever so let’s try again.)
'fraid not…
Say if you have a comp of a short passage that you will be re-using, it makes sense to put the Events into a Part and then share it about. This could be a riff, bv, anything.
This Part is now an “event” - I use the quotes and the small ‘e’ to draw the parallel with Events but maintain the technical distinction - and that’s how you will treat it from now on (the whole point of Parts).
But say, you want to fade your killer riff out. Or in. Or both! Not each component, but across the whole thing. You can’t. Neither can you trim the “event” (Part) short, particularly mid-note, without getting an unpleasantly abrupt effect or find there’s no zero-crossing in the right place. And although I haven’t come across any personally (yet), I’m sure there are folk out there who could cite situations where X-fading would have been a real help.
Mixer automation isn’t the right tool for the job here: it’s too fiddly for a start and you may want to be using that at another level - such as fading out a series of faded Parts. It’s a question of a heirarchy of jobs.
Bouncing is also a workaround but then you lose the functionality of sharing with Parts that you didn’t fade.
I think Parts are an essential but haven’t been touched, afaik, since they were brought in. High time for an upgrade.
I usually use “Dissolve Part”, make fade and then use “Events To Part” to put it back together. Definitely a workaround but sort of doable…
But isn’t detailed moving around and editing of parts one of those jobs that it’s quite hard to foretell any given user template for and for which most of the moving will be trialling parts in places to see which one is just right? Then when all decisions have to be made then you detail plans in advance of the final operations and then fit it all together.
Must admit I’m a bit with Ulf on the less is more edit side of things but can see that, like Crotchety’s example that it could sometimes be necessary.
I’m trying to think why it is the way it is and why they made the decision not to include this seemingly reasonable feature.
Could it be that they can’t formulate (yet) a common scenario that would fit all DAW operators forward planning for final editing?
But that won’t work if you’re fading across several events, will it? And surely you’d lose sharing. That’s the point I’m trying make here.
I can’t remember with any certainty but wasn’t there a time when Events didn’t have fade handles either? I think Parts come from the same era but haven’t had the upgrades that Events have.
Perhaps Parts were never envisaged to be as powerful as they could be. I seem to be using them more and more, and would use them even more than that if they had what I’m sure we would all now consider to be basic controls of an “event”. *
- seeing as this refers back a page: Events and Parts are distinct but both, in that they play sound, are “events”.
I’m pretty much squarely with Ulf on this one… i would rather get the person at the other end of the chain to give that little bit more first, but yes unfortunately there ARE times when time exceeds talent shall we say, and i can see fade handles being VERY useful… i don’t generally use ‘parts’ either but i’m struggling to understand why fade handles aren’t included in them… kind of daft leaving that one out really imho. Not really an addition, rather putting something in that should have been there in the first place. 
OP here. Why are people banging on about the quality of the take? This has nothing to do with the issue. Please stick to the point.
Sorry Crotchety, I’m also with Ulf on this one! Maybe you should . . . . nah, just winding you up!
Fades for audio parts would actually be really cool and would not only save time but also open up a lot of interesting possibilities!
+1
Not to stray from the topic but I’d love to see fade handles on MIDI events too :]
Bar Steward! 
I don’t think you’re alone on this and it’s only a bit OT. I think you are actually making a similar point to me earlier - whatever a part/event is technically called, if they’re used to create output they are likely to need the same tools.
In fact, just to make up for calling you names earlier, I will amend the title of the OP so you are OT.
+1
I think you’re all suffering from imagination failure. Parts are useful for more than comped takes. Now, can we give it a rest please. Thank you.
Major +1 again from me, of course, Crotchety. Parts should have fade handles, crossfades, etc; can’t believe they weren’t added years ago. Seems really odd and like something’s missing.
Here’s another way of looking at why these features should be there (regardless if there are work-arounds that let you sort-of get by doing other things):
The visual design of Steinberg’s software IMPLIES that fade handles should exist on objects you are working with in the project window. That is, put someone down in front of Cubase (who’s already a bit familiar with comping, etc) and show them how to use parts for the first time. Once they get the hang of it, nine times out of 10 they will eventually start clicking around looking for the fade handles on the part objects.
The reason it seems like they should be there is because Steinberg uses fade controls as a major interface item in much of the rest of the program. And moreover: with audio parts, the interface paradigm (how you move things around, resize, copy, etc, etc) is almost identical to audio events, except that crossfade controls are missing. It’s inconsistent. Surely they could be added, and would be a welcome addition.
Again, Steinberg’s user interface leads one to expect - perhaps optimistically! - that fades will be available on most any object you’re working with (even MIDI objects, I would certainly agree). So please, add these features. Of course, not every single user notices this omission, but that’s besides the point. It’s still missing, and inconsistent in the user interface design. And those of us who are more visually oriented in our workflow (looks like Crotchety and I are) see it as an oddly obvious oversight every time we use the program.
My 2 cents…
Aj
Yeah, it ought to be there already.
Not having fades on Audio Parts looks like something went wrong.
Fade handles on Instrument Track MIDI Parts would make some sense.
Fade handles on MIDI Track MIDI Parts would be a bastard?
CC#7/CC#11 maybe?
Could be a mess in the end, trying to find the real reason why the volume drops or can’t be maxed out on a track?
For “real” volume fades on Audio Parts, though, it’s strange that it’s not already there?
I can see that fades (and particularly, volume handles) would be quite useful on parts, but TBH I have got so used to grouping events, selecting multiple events, and bouncing them where necessary, that I don’t reckon I would really use this much. Also I can see that it might be neat to have Handles on MIDI events but imagine if you accidentally put a tiny fade on the end of one - suddenly no Volume on the next event. Though I suppose you could have the next event default to set volume (say, 100)…
Ok, could be quite good, but not a big priority. And fundamental changes to the basic structure of Cubase don’t usually happen anyway, at least not for years…
BTW someone asked if the handles weren’t originally there on events, they have been there since Cubase SX 1, they came originally from Nuendo 1 and before that Cubase VST didn’t have them.
Ah, some proper posts again
Interesting what you all have to say about MIDI Parts. I can’t say it had ever been an issue for me but following an earlier post I thought it would be worth including them. As one or two of you have pointed out, maybe the case for them is not as clear cut or technically straight forward.
ffg mentions that he bounces. Such a workaround loses the benefits of sharing but I think I might well have done the same on occasion, although I generally end up automating the mixer. Both ways have their drawbacks and only serve to highlight the problem, imo. (And thanks for the history lesson, ffg, your memory is really quite impressive!)
Yeah, thanks for the historical refresher on Steinberg’s Parts feature, ffg. It’s all coming back to me now… 
.
Nuendo v1.0 was the first Steinberg program I used professionally with clients. It was great from the start, but it must have taken at least a year before I discovered Parts. Why hadn’t I learned about them before, I thought? I always loved Steinberg’s “object based” user interface. (At the time, it set Steinberg apart from the competition.) But with parts, suddenly I could organize individual verses, phrases, etc. into discrete, easily editable objects - and copy/move/modify them at will. In a word, they were a revelation. I could work faster, which (among other things) meant I could add more billable clients. Which means more $$ for me.
In time, I discovered that, as great as Parts was, certain features were left out. For one thing, the Glue tool - ubiquitous in other parts of the software - was missing from the Parts editor. And yes - as this thread so clearly reminds us - you couldn’t crossfade Parts.
I figured these oversights were simply the telltale signs of a v1.0 program. Surely they were easy updates, and would be included in the next version. But Nuendo 2 came and went - no glue tool, no crossfades. Nuendo 3 - nothing changed. Several maintenance upgrades were released, and no changes were made.
Somewhere around Nuendo 3, I switched over to Cubase. And now, here we are today - a decade later! - with Cubase 6 (and a new version of Nuendo as well), and still these basic improvements to Parts are not made. It’s frustrating. It’s almost as if the programmer(s) who designed the entire Parts feature set left the team years ago (maybe they’re the guys working on Studio One?). And now, no one still left at Steinberg wants to continue development of it.
It’s a shame. Time is money for me, and the absent of these minor feature improvements hurts my business.
Aj