Win 11, Cubase 14.0.20 Normal or Safe Mode with disabled pref settings.
Happens when the text field is apparently too small to contain the three digits and the minus sign. But not when you increase the volume to values over 0,0 dBfs, which will use 3 digits and the point, which will be displayed correctly. Perhaps if they’d remove the decimal point and the digits after that it would fit…
N13 still behaves the “old” way where it just reduces the available visible characters to the width. This was done for a reason, so I’m hopeful this is potentially a placeholder for more visual options and system font selections in a pending release.
Reason for what? I cannot see any logical reason not able to see numbers where in 14.0.10 i could, if there is a reason for the implementation lets not allow to minimize width that much in the first place, so for me this looks like as oversight from UI dev team.
I’d much rather be able to make the track as small as possible while still seeing the fader. If I need to see the dB on the track, then I just won’t make it that small. Since they actively had to change this code, I personally don’t think it’s an “oversight” but more a “preparation for user-based font selection” in the future. I obviously don’t know that, but they did this for a reason. I’ll know more if the same change is in N14.
This is incredinbly irratating!
I used to be able to read the meter values with 60 tracks displayed in the mixer, but now I have to zoom in quite a bit which forces me to constantly scrool the tracks left/right or hover my mouse over the value field to see what it is.
Why was this changed?!?
SB, please stop removing existing, useful features!
If this is a bug, please correct it. ASAP.
On my end, the issue…
Question : is it really indispensable to view peak values less than -10 dB when the strips are displayed at their nearly most narrowed state ? As long as I can fully see the more ‘dangerous’ ones, I’m fine with it, honestly… 
I agree, particularly since fader level dB on its own doesn’t really matter independent of the input signal. I think this matters even less when viewed in the context of simultaneously viewing 50 channels, and I would ask “what actions are you taking on the knowledge of the exact fader level when looking at that many channels as a separate level from the output?”
'Twer I to hazard a guess, it would be because it’s different, and because people are used to something else. Using N13 instead of C14.0.10, I see that when you make the faders narrow enough for the level labels themselves to disappear, you “lose” 1 channel per 14 channels of visibility. Meaning, the “super narrow” view that still gives you at least an integer precision (e.g. “-14.”) even if you can’t see the decimal, where as in the new view, you not only don’t see the explicit value, but you’ve also lost the fader label guides too. However, you never lose the graduated line-guide grouping, so even with no labels and no numbers you can still immediately discern the general level.
MY solution would be to just expand the width more until I see the values if I need them even if I lose 1 or two channels in the same viewing area per 13/14 channels. I mean, that’s only 3-4 channels per 50 “lost” in the same space, and that shouldn’t even matter.
That said, what “I” think doesn’t matter - it’s “personal.” Though the impact and resolution may be “trivial,” losing something you previously had in the absence of a stated purpose normally doesn’t sit well with people.
Had SB said something like “We realize the mix fader width loses precision at the narrowest values and that for every 50 channels you used to see, you potentially now only see 47 in the same space. However, given the flood of negative responses to our overall UI and lack of font/color/sizing/etc features, this is our first step towards allowing scalable font selection in the overall interface” then I think people would be more accepting. And they very well may have said that somewhere, but I doubt it.
All in all, I think statements like “this is irritating, and if it’s a bug, then please fix it” are fair. I don’t think it’s a bug - I think it’s an artifact of window-system scaling methods put in place as an iterative feature provisioning. But I have no idea.
At the end of the day, no actual information is lost, though you may have to change the way you’re used to seeing it. If this is an actual “bug” then we’ll have to wait and see.
For me, yes.
I regularly gain-stage to ~-18dB so nearly all my levels are in that (double-digit) range. The notable exception is my 2-bus which is ~0dB.
Could you give us more precisions about the ‘gain-stage’ imperative ? because I’m wondering to which point you absolutely need to keep a given channel at a ~-18 dB level.
I don’t want to start an additional debate concerning the ‘gain-staging’ concept, but well… As long as you have a fader at disposal, before doing an audio mixdown and, as we all know that Cubase is working at either 32 or 64 bits float, where is the actual issue ? Your ears are your friends, at the end…
…you sure 
?
Have you thought about coloring the channel meters according to your gain staging? I find that much easier to see that the small numbers. e.g. From -18 to -10dbFS, the meter is green, from -10 to -6 orange, and above red.
Personally, I don’t care about the exact numbers when gain staging anyway, takes too much time, getting in the rough ballpark is perfectly fine.
Almost… 
Same here 
Different gainstaging methods aside, and although this behavior doesn’t affect me, I do think that the value for negative two digit values should be displayed as e.g “-10” and not just as a dot. The space should be there.
I gain-stage to ~18dB (not exactly) because, from what I’ve read about the design of many plugins, they operate optimally at that input signal level. Much lower levels won’t produce the pleasing levels of ‘musical’ distortion while much higher levels will produce nasty, harsh distortion.
This is not something I do b/c it’s theoretically a good idea but rather b/c my mixes sound better with the practice.
Also, I like having a fair amount of headroom given that some instrument (notably percussion) swing considerably in level. Using a target of ~18dB gives me plenty of headroom w/o ever coming close to 0dB FS.
Cheers…
I did re-color the meters and, although that’s a nice quick indicator of general signal level, my mixing and mastering technique (developed over years) involves looking at and adjusting to specific numerical levels.
My mixes are very dense/complex and, as such, getting the levels right balance across tracks often involves fader adjustments of just 1 or 2 dB, especially when I near the final mix.
Bottom line I don’t want to change my mixing/mastering process to accomodate a new Cubase bug/change. I’m not asking for a new feature but rather just to bring back a previously existing feature. That sounds very reasonable to me.
Thanks for the suggestion…
