yes. having an automation point in the volume has this effect. to make a volume adjiustment is neccesary to change the automation value as moving the fader will eventually return to the automation volume.
this is just how automation works in whole cubase
no, it won’t
the parameter will go back to its automation value. this is how all DAWs work in read mode.
better than a workaround, is to have the bug fixed
yes it is. been working with it for at least 20 years.
it’s a shame that they don’t fix the VCA bug. (and many many others!)
Maybe Steinberg could fix the issue by adding the opposite value of the VCA value at the cursor. If the VCA reads -2.34 then let the channel volume of the audio tracks be reduced by -2.34 and then add +2.34 afterwards.
This way we should always get the original fader value back.
Except for the anomaly when save-closing the project and re-loading it.
I think something is getting lost in translation. I would recommend that you write complete sentences that include all information that makes up the complete point you want to make. I feel like I understand what you mean but that you’ve ended up saying two different things.
From what I recall, what most people think is this:
“Freely moving fader” - means that when you touch the fader you can move it to any position, and after releasing the fader it stays where you left it, and it stays there until you touch it again. That seems to be the most common meaning. The way to have that behavior and being able to adjust levels is to use a VCA to adjust the levels. After using the VCA to set level you still (should) have the same “freely moving fader”-behavior.
“NOT freely moving fader” - means that after you have let go of the fader it will return to whatever value the system has recorded, either via an automation pass or by creating an automation point ‘manually’ by clicking.
What people think is “broken” is the first behavior, because the system recalls the “wrong” value when the project is reloaded if a VCA is connected.
Correct?
correct. that’s what i mean
the bug is about automating the VCA. it will eventually change the desired values after a project reopen
my workaround was to use Volume plugin to do volume automation, similar as how i do it in ableton with utility plugin.
pro tools has the best approach which is the volume trim lane.
I think there is, again, confusion here. “Automating the VCA” to me implies writing automation data; but the bug we’re all mad about is VCA fader values changing when we HAVEN’T written any automation data yet but have indeed adjusted the overall VCA volume (I think the bug may also occur when automation data is written to a member track but not the VCA fader, but I can’t keep anything straight anymore on this topic and just write initial values on all faders now).
You mean the values on the tracks that the VCA fader is controlling, correct? I don’t recall people saying the VCA faders change value after reopening. I could be wrong though.
I guess I don’t recall…the first time I ran into the bug I googled the workaround and didn’t look back on the specifics, so I guess I should just stay out of this convo lol.
Since I have you, do I need to write initial values on BOTH VCA’s and member tracks or just one of those?
TBH - I am even more unwilling to use VCA faders by now than I was over the past years.
I am under the impression that we haven’t yet figured out how VCA faders work in Cubase despite occasional claims that we do. @MattiasNYC 's current thread on two further anomalies corrobate this notion.
It is remarkable that Steinberg has decided to throw a blanket over the issue by not responding to any of these countless questions over all those years. Let alone to provide an updated manual or future prospects on that matter. For more than a decade… VCA faders were introduced in Cubase 8.
Remarkable and I’m afraid not in a good kind of way.
I use Nuendo, and I do both. In fact all of my tracks have this regardless of control, and it includes plugin default presets as well.
My feeling is that once you do it on one you might as well do it on the other.
Was enjoying trying to get my head around what @MattiasNYC was showing in that thread…..for the sake of sanity and time I decided to leave it at where I could best understand it:-) Just wish Steinberg would be a lot more active on the Nuendo Forum to offer their own view on all this too.