Just for clarification. Splitting clips and rejoining and all those functions can be tied to hot keys too in Studio One (macros remember, a whole series of operations can be put onto one key easily) so it is quite fast. I have got the actual QWERTY keyboard especially designed by Editors Keys for SOP and it is excellent.
 
Rendering clip gain changes into a new file also is fast and does not involve dragging in any form. After a clip gain change you simply select the clip and hold down control and press B. It renders the clip, puts the new clip into the session and stores it in the 'Bounces' folder which is also handy.
 
If you split a number of clips, make clip gain changes you can also just select all of them and single hot key will glue everything back together too. Clip FX can also be rendered in pretty fast as well if you want.
 
De-essing is also cool when the waveform reflects clip gain changes. Because it is easy to slice out the sibilance, drop it down by eye to what you know works and then its done.
 
From your lengthy explaination it still seesm to me that Sonar goes down a more complicated road to achieve a result that Studio One does in a few seconds and clicks but that is only my opinion. Why have other DAW's elected to allow the clip gain waveforms changes too. There must be something in it!
 
But I am glad Craig that this discussion has got you thinking, I agree it is great when a thread does that. Me too, I am relooking into how I use and refine this technique as well.

Jeff Evans
From your lengthy explanation it still seesm to me that Sonar goes down a more complicated road to achieve a result that Studio One does in a few seconds and clicks but that is only my opinion.

 
Well, I wasn't actually dealing with opinions, but the physical number of clicks, drags, and mouse positionings required to do the same thing.
 

Why have other DAW's elected to allow the clip gain waveforms changes too. There must be something in it!

 
But you're really missing my point. Even if Sonar had that function, I wouldn't use it except maybe for fixing the odd clip here and there - never for extensive leveling. Melodyne splits the clip automatically and non-destructively, has a visual representation of the waveform changing, and keeps the clip intact. I don't see any way that isn't the best possible way to do what you describe. If I was using SOP, I would use the Melodyne approach in there as well. By any standard, it's much faster than either SOP's or Sonar's "native" options and gives audible feedback, which no clip gain change in any program does.
 
Perhaps using the DSP is a six of one / half a dozen of the other situation, but in Sonar it takes fewer motions to do the same thing, and the waveform gets redrawn because it has in fact made a physical change. So what you see onscreen in Sonar is always what the audio levels actually are, which I appreciate (in addition to being slightly faster).
 
As to clip gain automation, I really like that in Sonar it's possible to have slopes and create complex envelopes. This is something that has always bothered me in Vegas....you can't have an opacity slope within a clip envelope, you have to use automation.
 
So ultimately, anyone uses what they feel works best but I do think there are objective standards, such as the amount of time required to do something, that would tilt a user in using a particular technique.
 
Before Melodyne came along, I often used V-Vocal's amplitude rubber band. It was good for its time, but as soon as something better was available, i used that instead. If something comes along that's better than Melodyne, I'll use that. And if Sonar redrew waveforms when you changed clip automation, I wouldn't like that it was showing me the something other than the true waveform level, but I'd cope.

I suspect that folks are wishing for visual feedback in order to make it easier to match volume levels from clip to clip. The problem with that is you can't always predict the relative volume by looking at a section of a clip. Loudness is based on average levels and spectral distribution - not peaks - so two clips can appear the same size visually and still be perceived as very different volumes. Conversely, you might adjust a clip to look the same in amplitude as an adjacent clip and yet they still won't match in volume.
 
For this reason, the proposed visual feedback is almost useless, its only value being to compare peak levels. For level-matching, you really have no choice but to rely on your ears.
 
Gain envelopes are great for this, especially when used in conjunction with volume envelopes and compressors. Because a gain envelope is pre-FX, you're adjusting the level going into your track compressor and thus making it easier to achieve transparent leveling via compression. 
 
What you don't want to do is mess with gain once the compressor's been dialed in. Then you switch to volume envelopes.
 
BTW, I do this using a gain plugin, specifically the free one from Blue Cat Audio. The gain plugin lets me decide where in the FX chain I want the gain reduction to occur.
 
 

bitflipper
I suspect that folks are wishing for visual feedback in order to make it easier to match volume levels from clip to clip. The problem with that is you can't always predict the relative volume by looking at a section of a clip. Loudness is based on average levels and spectral distribution - not peaks - so two clips can appear the same size visually and still be perceived as very different volumes. Conversely, you might adjust a clip to look the same in amplitude as an adjacent clip and yet they still won't match in volume.
 
For this reason, the proposed visual feedback is almost useless, its only value being to compare peak levels. For level-matching, you really have no choice but to rely on your ears.

 
Yes, a point well worth mentioning. In the case of leveling something like narration the audio characteristics are relatively uniform, so you can get away with normalizing peaks and the results are quite predictable. Of course you always need to do the "ear reality check" but for vocals or guitar solo notes, 99 times out of 100 the peak normalization works. However, you certainly couldn't get away with level normalization on program material for the exact reasons you've mentioned.

Then there's Har-Bal  ;-)

Everyone is correct on the ears being the deciding factor , however visual feed back
  does speed up the progress. It gets you in the ball park much faster. 
adjusting s's in studio one is much quicker for myself because of this.
   ( X3 is much better in most other areas :)
 

bitflipper
I suspect that folks are wishing for visual feedback in order to make it easier to match volume levels from clip to clip. The problem with that is you can't always predict the relative volume by looking at a section of a clip. 
 

This is incorrect.  And the reason I say so is because it is coming from someone as I said before that has not had this feature so basically Dave is not in a position to say so.  How would he know?  Sounds to me like Dave is making excuses.  (Aw we don't have that feature so it must be wrong!)  And I suspect Craig as well has not spent as much time with this feature say as I have as well.  (I spend much more time in Studio One than Craig does, end of story)  Although I do respect the fact that Craig has come into contact with a lot more DAW's than most of us.
 
Obviously the transient or front edge of any clip is not used to match levels but the rms component or the guts of the sound if you like.  (Dave is wrong on this too the transient edge is less useful in fact)  I am rather expert at matching levels by eye and have become very accurate at it in fact.  (especially if you enlarge the track height a little while you are doing this)  And remember I use the VU meter so when I go back over a clip or clips that I have visually altered by eye, 99 times out of 100 the VU's just peak up to 0 dB nicely over the changes and what I hear is very even volume.  Not just on voice overs but on most things.  (and if the VU shows some slight variation it will only be small and it is very easy then to adjust)  Even drums.  I have got pretty good at matching very transient material too.  In fact with drums this feature is a godsend.  Because drummers are often hitting the odd hit a little softer here and there and this can really fix kick or snare hits that are a little low. (or loud)
 
Once you really start using this a lot you will never go back like I have said before.  It really saves time because 9 times out of 10 once you do level things out this way no further automation is needed.  And once you put the track through some light compression etc it just sounds very even and level.
 
If it is so bad why has Pro Tools, Studio One and I suspect most other DAW's elected to go down this path. (no one can really answer that I suspect. I am sure they too have really thought about it and decided yes we will do it)
 
I agree with Craig that Melodyne is good for this too (I have it too remember and we have had for longer as well)  but then once you get good at this then you don't even have to load up and use Melodyne. One less step. I tend to use Melodyne more for pitch tuning etc..
 
With clip automation I can see why it is best to leave waveforms alone, similar to track automation. I think with any automation you just have to know what you have done.

Sorry, Jeff, I wasn't dismissing your beloved Studio One (which I do have, btw, although admittedly don't use anymore). I've just not found that gauging loudness by viewing waveforms to be useful. If such a feature were to be implemented in SONAR, I'd hope that it would be optional. 
 
Nobody's making excuses, and nobody's saying it's awful. Time to crack open some of that great Australian beer, kick back and listen to some waveforms.
 

Jeff Evans
And I suspect Craig as well has not spent as much time with this feature say as I have as well.

 
I think in the course of using this kind of clip gain protocol in over a thousand videos, soundtracks for three movies, and six videos about Studio One that I qualify for knowing whereof I speak.
 

Once you really start using this a lot you will never go back like I have said before.

 
But that's where I came from, and have chosen not to go back to it.
 

If it is so bad why has Pro Tools, Studio One and I suspect most other DAW's elected to go down this path. (no one can really answer that I suspect. I am sure they too have really thought about it and decided yes we will do it)

 
No one has said it was bad. I simply believe there are faster and easier ways to do it. Pro Tools only added clip gain in, what, version 9 or 10? I didn't see the Avid forums lighting up with people talking about how Pro Tools was unacceptable because it didn't do this. Just because something was done a particular way years ago doesn't mean it's the best way to do something.
 

I agree with Craig that Melodyne is good for this too (I have it too remember and we have had for longer as well)  but then once you get good at this then you don't even have to load up and use Melodyne. One less step.

 
You're ignoring the steps saved by not having to split clips.

This is getting better now! Firstly thanks Craig for the Melodyne tip. Pretty cool. Also Studio One will also set up transient markers too and there is a single command that splits clips at all those points. Your Melodyne tip made me find that one out.
 
Although from experience I have found it is usually only a few areas that need this too. (and mostly on other people's multis not mine so much because I track pretty consistent level wise)
 
Another approach I have found that works in SOP is this too and it is pretty quick:
 
Single key stroke to get a hold of the range tool
Select the area of interest
Ctrl-Alt-X turns the selected area into a separate clip event. (you could put this command onto a macro and assign that to a single hot key)
Grab the clip gain handle and tweak!
Leave and move on
Or control-B to render permanently
 
I have found from experience it is good to leave it and move on. Because once the mix starts happening you may want to alter a clip gain adjustment later. Leaving a clip split lets you find it in a hurry too.
If Cakewalk do make this an option knowing them they will make it optional which is sort of ideal in a way.
 
Now Dave you have won me. Yes we do make nice beer here! Too nice actually I find myself drinking more of it than I should. Our beer is strong in flavour and alcohol content too. Although we are overun now with a lot of boutique imported beers too. You still get more in our small bottles though. (370 ml compared to 330 ml imported)