I would ask for Nuendo what I’ve asked for (imperatively) for years for Cubase: a real clip gain! I don’t know how users manage to subtly modify the volumes of an event, point by point, while seeing what they’re doing. Not only does the pencil tool give no written indication of volume, it can’t increase volume. It’s only reductive! All other DAWs, starting with Pro Tools, have real clip gains. The envelope? Ridiculous window, uncomfortable, slow. Volume automation? You can’t see the changes visually on the waves, and it eats up space in the editor (since you can’t, as in Pro Tools or Studio One or Sampitude, view the automation on the main track). Please, Steinberg, it’s time to offer this basic tool.
16 Likes
I don’t understand. You can edit (with a mouseclick and typing OR with keycommands) the volume of an event up to 24dB*.
Check the status info line. Or read the manual.
- I ‘d love to be able to go to 48 dB though.
2 Likes
Use also manuals!
1 Like
Hmm. The only difference I see between ProTools and Nuendo is that clip gain in Nuendo is constant within a single event and cannot have various control points. But other than that everything seems to be there.
In Nuendo I can drag with the mouse the square at the middle/top of each event to increase clip gain up to 24db. And while dragging it shows a display of the current clip gain as well as the current delta to the prior setting. Not sure if there are preferences that need to be modified to enable this display?
I can also with the pencil tool draw the volume curve, and again while dragging a control point it displays right next to the mouse the dB value of the volume adjustment, with the customary +12dB limit. Thus it can increase volume to a degree, and of course decrease it as well.
As the shared video indicates, and is well understood clip gain and volume automation aren’t interchangeable. But both exist in Nuendo and are quite practical and quite usable, with that one difference that the clip gain is constant per event.
Conceptually I don’t have any issue with that. Clip gain is not meant to solve detailed volume automation, it’s meant to normalize signal levels from diverse sources which may not have been recorded the same or correctly. So a constant clip gain per event to correct for source variations is appropriate, and then using volume automation to impart the finer interpretation of the material.
3 Likes
Is there an amp you can put in the line like in pro tools?
There doesn’t seem to be a dedicated plugin to just raise levels like Avid has, but many stock plugins have an output gain. You can add for example the stock ‘Frequency’ EQ, and its output gain can add another 24dB if you need that. And that is an automate-able parameter if you really need more than the 12db of the volume automation. Now this is a gain inserted at the plugin chain, so you want to keep that plugin at the top of your stack to be similar to clip gain.
So if you just really need to draw a clip gain curve, put this EQ plulgin at the top of the chain, leave the EQ parameters alone, and then do this. I’d still argue that regular event clip gain and the volume automation is the cleaner way to go, but many roads lead to Rome.
The other thing to mention, if you enable the status line in your editor window, it shows among others the clip gain of the selected event, and you can edit that number right in the status line, which may be faster that dragging the handle at the top of the clip if you have to go pretty far.
It would be nice if they labeled that clip gain, not volume, since this is not the value of the volume automation lane.
2 Likes
No need to be unpleasant.
I wrote: “I don’t know how users manage to subtly modify the volumes of an event, point by point, while seeing what they’re doing”. And I know the manual very well on this point.
I don’t think you understand what a real clip gain is, where it’s possible to adjust, for example, a single syllable of a word without affecting the others. To do this, you need to see the effect on the wave segment. Check out Pro Tools , Studio One or Samplitude. You lack this knowledge.
3 Likes
Very unconvincing, and I know all that. It doesn’t answer what I’m saying. It really doesn’t.
Hello allklier.
You say, "The only difference I see between ProTools and Nuendo is that clip gain in Nuendo is constant in a single event and cannot have multiple control points. "
That’s exactly the problem.
And when you say, “Conceptually, I have no problem with that. The clipping gain isn’t intended to solve detailed volume automation, it’s intended to normalize signal levels from various sources that may not have been recorded in the same way or correctly.”
I disagree. Clip gain is also useful (and whimsically so) for adjusting pronunciation details on vocals, or too-weak attacks or finishes on an instrument. I’ve been using it in Pro Tools for 10 years, and it’s an essential tool before compression.
3 Likes
Hello allklier.
I know all about that. It’s all just detours to rectify a handicap. It would be better if Steinberg created a real clip gain, with reduction (as is the case here) and volume increase, then level indication.
As I said above, Pro tools, Samplitude, Studio One and Logic Pro have this. There’s a reason for this.
That is fair. The operative detail here is that you want to do that prior to compression, which means volume automation doesn’t come into play here.
It seems logical to want to have feature parity for the sake of maintaining workflows, and as such more flexible clips gain (flexible maybe better word than real).
Personally, not having been used to the clip gain driving pronunciation details etc. - I might still use a separate plugin (such as the EQ work around) higher in the chain. Mostly to separate the purpose of the task - clip gain being fixing input level, and a separate automation curve to deal just with vocal shaping.
But that’s total personal preference in not overloading one tool with multiple functions. If you have done for 10 years with clip gain, certainly appreciate that it works for you.
1 Like
Well, if the compressor is post-fader it does. That’s how I do it. Then again, I do post production rather than music, and for a lot of what I do the dialog is pretty static.
1 Like
Right, didn’t think of that. I don’t use post-fader inserts very often.
Funny enough, I was just looking to see if that exists in ProTools, and it doesn’t appear so. There are pre/post fader sends, but not obvious way of post faster inserts w/o an Aux bus.
Goes to show that these tools aren’t copy cats of each other, but rather different approaches to the same set of problems.
1 Like
In fact, the question would be: why does Cubase-Nuendo have a clip gain with pencil? There’s a reason. If it exists, why does it only exist for gain reduction (you can also reduce the gain of the total clip), not for increase? And if it exists at least to reduce gain, why not give it a precise information function, in db, about what it’s doing? If it’s useless, it can be removed. If it is useful, why not give it the normal and complete volume functions, as everywhere else in Cubase-Nuendo when there is a volume function?
3 Likes
Good question. I’ve never used that feature. I just had to look it up. In the manual it’s called ‘Event Volume Envelope’ (page 376 in the N12 user manual). It’s bundled with the fades features, which might explain why it’s primarily subtractive only. Certainly seems it’s 80% there of having your clip gain.
Would be interesting to hear more about the purpose of Event Volume Envelopes from a Nuendo perspective.
I have used Nuendo since the first version (Nuendo V1). I have understood clip gain as it has always been in Nuendo and Cubase. There is total clip gain per event and inside event is automated "clip volume). I like to work as it is.
Greetings form Finland!
Hi Rauno,
That’s fine and I’m happy for you. But adding new functionality doesn’t deprive anyone of old functionality. Without it, we’d still be at Nuendo version 1. Which wouldn’t stop us from being happy, of course.
Greetings from Quebec (cordially)!
That’s true! Stenberg always adds new features with the main version updates (ex.11->12) and this would be nice addon.
R
2 Likes
As I said at the start of this thread, the Event Volume Envelopes are unusable because the window is too small (in 2k, it’s small, but in 4k, it’s a mousehole) and they operate in parallel (as opposed to directly on the clip or track), which is actually processing. It’s a very bad method and an old, unproductive window that needs to be completely redone. But know that I like Nuendo on the whole, I’m not saying that to discredit it. I know Cubase better, and I’ve just upgraded to Nuendo (because of Dolby Atmos -the beds- and the Postprod functions), but I love what I see in general and I’m still discovering a lot of things. The latest? The Loudness track. Wow. But that’s another discussion.
Hmm, then I’m not sure I’m looking in the right place? This is how the event volume envelope looks for me (the blue line and control points), which seems quite usable. It does not display any values as you pointed out, so you’re kind of doing it a bit blind. Essentially a percentage of the event height.
The change you make is reflected in the wave forms, so you do get a bit of visual feedback.
And you can’t increase volume. Putting the control point at the top of the event is unity. Now, you could increase the clip gain by 6db, then bring the event envelope down to across the board to compensate and you would have have room in both directions. A bit backwards, and not sure of the processing order in that case (would have to be tested to clarify).
In fact that’s what I did here. I drew an initial control point for the event volume envelope. That lowered my waveform. Then I increased the clip gain by eye to return the waveform to its original height, which was about 3.5dB. And then edited further. This now would be an envelope where you have 3.5dB of head room to raise the volume. Again processing order unknown still.
All this is to see if this feature could solve your problem. Though after this discussion, I prefer volume automation which is more accessible, and then just make sure my inserts in question are post-fader as Matthias aptly pointed out.