We could also remove indications on plugins, EQ and compressors, and even on faders. That way, the exemplary logic of Steinberg’s clip gain will have won out everywhere!
I mean no disrespect, my friend (especially as my text here is translated), but I have engineers around me too, and not the least of them. Of course, we learn with them (especially the older ones) to look less, and listen more, and digital technology has destroyed a certain instinct and memory for sound, it’s true, but no one is denying information as natural as decibels for sound. It’s a measure. And a measure isn’t made for exactly what you want it to be made for. It’s made for what you want, when you want it, and for whom you want it.
I’m asking Steinberg to add a tool complement that all its competitors offer us: Pro Tools, Samplitude, Logic Pro, Studio One, Pyramix. I wonder why they do it. They must not know anything about mixing or engineers.
Actually I think have dB readouts of the points is useful.
Not to replace your ears or just paint by numbers. But when I’m working on a section with many clips from the same source, I do pay attention where levels sit dB wise and if I have to use the pencil tool try to hit the same numbers as the previous clip. It creates consistency and can make it faster as I don’t have to judge every point on it’s own merits.
This wouldn’t be about the initial value I set, but everything I might do after. Or maybe I just l like numbers and control as much as I like sounds. Original from a computer science background, might be an occupational hazard.
If someone doesn’t care about numbers (or fader marks), they don’t have to look. But others might just find them helpful for a variety of reasons you might not be able to relate to.
The other aspect mentioned since my first thread is the possibility of increasing the gain on a given point, not just reducing it. We’re not talking about 12 db! But here we have zero. It’s uncomfortable. I may want to increase (quickly, with one click, on the clip) one note in a series of notes (this is an example), because the instrumentalist went a little fast and weakened at that precise moment, while everything else is really perfect. But I can’t. You have to get around it, take detours.
Anyway, thank you all. As far as I’m concerned, I’m certain of my request and I’m sticking to it. The request is made, we’ll see if Steinberg listens and considers it a good idea.
I fully agree @Mute. I joined Steinberg 4 years ago from Cakewalk Sonar. And Cakewalk has had clip gain for tens of years. Especially here with our digitized sound carriers there are short level peaks that we would like to reduce without changing the original.
In Cakewalk, the values were to be read in dB.
We are missing these values in Nuendo.
Can’t see any reason to not include some kind of numerical guidance when using the draw (pencil) tool, even if certain users may never need it. Reference and measurement can be helpful to some, especially when making comparisons and repeating settings between events.
Steinberg does not even need to spy on other companies. Their own WaveLab does this for more than 20 years.
Working with the clip based volume envelopes in WaveLab is easy, working with the blue line in Cubendo is cumbersome.
Yesterday, for example, I just wanted to turn down an applause by a few dB and leave the rest at zero. Then I asked myself, how can I see that the line drawn is exactly 0dB?
Instead, I then marked the applause and lowered it using the Gain function. Therefore, numerical values would be very important.
I’ve done this for more than a couple of decades now and I really can’t recall the last time I thought about it that way. I would just press play, grab the fader (touch-trim), lower the applause when it happens, release the fader. If I was super conscious about hitting exactly unity gain at a specific point I’d use “crossover” instead of “touch-trim”.
And then I’d use my ears.
In the end what matters is how it sounds, so I’m going to have to play it back anyway to verify that it sounds good, meaning I might as well adjust as I listen, which also often makes it more organic or musical (riding a fader). Nobody else is going to care if I hit an exact number for an event. Nobody.
Exactly! But when working with the draw tool and the envelope, how can we do that? Is there a way? Does Nuendo offer something more than Cubase in this regard? In Cubase I draw the envelope, play, listen closely, go for another round of editing the envelope curve, play, listen, oops too much, edit the envelope, etc etc. I can’t draw the envelope using a fader? Right?
I don’t have the slightest doubt that people more experienced than me can get there first try, but I can’t, and I think that having a readout would help me roughly estimate the effect of my action. Maybe I’m thinking wrong, I don’t know.
Yes - that is right.
But - However, since we digitize historical sound carriers, we are not actually allowed to make any volume adjustments. And if we have to do it, we have to document this exactly.
Of course I can do this by ear for private customers. But if you’re doing this for the National Library, those changes need to be documented in the metadata with commas and periods for all values.
That was the case here yesterday because the applause was about 19 dB louder than the speech. And the change must be sudden - no fader run.
That’s why I do it with the gain function, because I can specify absolute values there. And can document this 19 dB in the metadata.
I think I understand where the demand for “real clip gain” comes from.
Back in the Stone Age, I was one of the first testers for Syntrillium, the guys who made the fantastic CoolEdit Pro. I quit working for them when CoolEditPro2 first saw daylight. CoolEditPro was transformed into a realtime DAW. Before that, we just had to balance clips (clip gain), draw fades and never had to worry about writing automation. For a guy (me) who came from the trusted DD1000 and DD1600, a real-time engine was nothing but added complexity.
Nuendo (1.0) totally changed my mind, because it was faster, easier and logical to work with dynamic automation. From that point on, I only used clip gain for ballpark balancing the event volume before it hits plugins. And for drawing out sibilance’s and unwanted transients. For reducing breaths and the likes, there is the fabulous offline process, which allows you to remove them in a split second.
Before you misunderstand me (again) and think that I am against an improved clip gain: this is not the case. I fully support making Clip gain better, which will obviously bring it closer to how the PT clip gain is implemented.
I however disagree with the importance and “major workflow killer” that some users attach to the current implementation. It may be important for some specific user cases, the thing is that it just wasn’t designed for that. And since Clip gain was introduced in Nuendo around the time that Columbus set sail, it obviously can use a facelift.
Obviously you don’t draw with a fader. I will also grab an automation point to adjust it every now and then but I never care about what the value says. I eyeball it, listen, adjust, done.
Especially if, for example, some of the applause fades for a moment in an illogical or unnatural way. The clip gain allows you to rectify this very quickly. But it needs to be able to increase just that part and return to its starting point, all within the chosen curve. And it’s useful to have a written, objective representation, as it is everywhere else for volume issues.
There’s nothing more personal than workflow. You can’t judge other people’s workflows. But when users ask for a function, it fits in with their way of working. And when that function is already everywhere else, generalized across all competitors, there’s a reason. You can understand or not understand, explain all the detours or your own way of doing things in your own corner. It’s up to you.
I find the clip gain in Pro Tools very functional in balancing a lead vocal for example. For occasional spikes, I can quickly use the clip gain key command to level out and you don’t even need to split the clip/event (as you would need to in Nuendo/Cubase). Just select the portion that needs taming and then turn it down. Whether in speech or music, it’s so vital. It speeds up your workflow. The Nuendo feature (event envelope) is completely unusable to me (because those pencil lines reduce your gain rather than increment it). Infact, it’s been the reason I jump back to PT sometimes to get work done faster. We all have our own logic to things and those who rarely use it may not see the need (different strokes). I think PT particularly get’s it right with audio editing, whereas Nuendo/Cubase are very excellent on almost everything else, except detailed audio slicing and dicing.
I miss it too.
I have 90-minute lectures from the university (from digitized tape) , which always start with the automatic control at the beginning. The beginning is always overdriven.
A real clip gain would help me tame the first 3 seconds of dialogue. I had the opportunity 10 years ago in Cakewalk Sonar. I really miss this.
With the on-board tools from Nuendo, this is far too time-consuming.
It’s a great disappointment. But SB is deaf. I could make an unbeatable demonstration of my point (and have been making it a bit on this and the Cubase forum for years). I thank you for sharing it. There are other disappointments though about astonishing lack of features. The biggest one for me is not being able to move tracks in the Mixconsole and view directories (folders).
