Suggestion for improvement

Suggestion for improvement. Set numerical values on the automation curve. For example, on the volume curve, when adding a point, display the volume in dB.
When changing the curve, I would like to see the change in the waveform.

That is exactky what “event enveloppe” does.


I ask you to indicate where to configure the change in the waveform, when changing the automation curve. In my case, the waveform does not change.
Numerical values are displayed only when you click on a point. I would like to see a constant numeric display on the automation curve above the points, as in the example above.

Please check the manual, page 349 - Event enveloppes.

Best regards

Have you read my question carefully? My question was about the automation line, not Event enveloppes.

I don’t want to force you into any kind of workflow which you are not comfortable with, but using event enveloppes does exactly what you want. And that is exactly why this feature is created.

Changing the visual representation of an event shouldn’t be affected by the automation line at all. That is simply wrong.


Event enveloppes does not allow to raise the line - increase the volume above the top line of the track. I can only turn down the pickup volume. How to draw - set the volume of the event to +5 dB?
On the automation line, I can do this without any problem.

Fredo, aren’t “event envelopes” pre-inserts though? Volume automation is post (unless specified).

Yeah, that’s why changing the visual representation of a waveform may not change when you changes something Post-insert & post-fader.


Event volume. (AKA Clip gain)


You obviously do not understand the essence of the automation line, its convenience, and flexibility of use.

Automation is Post Fader, so the visual representation of a waveform can not change.
And apparently you don’t understand why users are depending on the visual representation of a waveform to -for example- edit sibilances, apply compression or limiting, and above all: mixing.

Furthermore, when creating dubstep, all of your tracks would look like perfect rectangles.

All joking aside, I understand that it would be convenient for you.
That doesn’t mean it’s an oversight or shortcoming.
The way the system is curretly build, the combination of clip gain, event eveloppes and automation allows every user to achieve anything he.she wants.


Unless you mean the waveform display on the automation line …
If so, I have to think about this. before I make a comment.

My view on the subject.

Since clip gain has its own shortcomings ; only works negatively, can’t push/pull data vs automation, no numerical information of change and needs to be entered using static clicking ; I understand why some users ask for features like this.

However, I fully agree that the automation line shouldn’t change the main event waveform display ever.

When a fader is moved the display on any any affected track would continually need to change, that would be wasteful on resources and would look and feel super weird when mixing. Also When lowering a fader on a track eventually the next events waveform would be so small that you couldn’t see it. We do not all just mouse-click ourselves along in life.
No, not in a million years.

I didn’t talk about changing the main event waveform, I was talking about changing the waveform on the automation track, which is quite logical. There is no need to overload the main event, all the changes I requested in the first post only concern the waveform of the automation track.

Sorry. I didn’t get that.
In a way the argument is the same, however if it was implemented only on the volume automation track it wouldn’t bother me.

. BUT for the sake of the discussion :money_mouth_face:
Would that make sense when it doesn’t happen if you eq/filter it heavily? Or process it with a plugin? Faders are mostly used post processing…

1 Like

It would be great if Steinberg implemented this function not only in volume, but also in equalization, compression, and similar plug-ins with an automation track. I do not know how difficult it is to implement, but as an idea for the further development of Nuendo/Cubase, in my opinion, is interesting.