This is all why I included "YMMV".    
 
If clip gain envelopes changed the waveform display, in SONAR, I'm sure I would very much like it and use it.  I think it's a great idea.   But it doesn't exist in SONAR so at this point it's simply a missing feature.  However, I still don't see myself suddenly not using track automation because of it - they each serve a purpose.  
 
I guess in the end I don't find this missing feature absoutely "essential".   Perhaps if I had used it all the time and then it was suddenly gone, I might feel different.  But honestly, swipe and drag on automation lanes (with bright green envelopes) works OK for me.   So does splitting clips and Ctrl+Dragging to adjust clip gain envelopes.   Most of the time I don't want to affect what's feeding the track FX, so...
 
 
PS: I wonder if bus waveform previews might fit into this discussion too.  Particularly when a group of tracks feeds a single bus, and the cumulative results are more important than each individual track.
 

gerberbaby


Everybody, literally everbody I know who is an established pro, uses the clip gain feature ala visual waveform in PT. This is the single most obvious flaw along with the efx bin that exists in Sonar. Being able to match levels visually on the waveform is crucial to efficiently comping parts and getting a balanced level befrore processing. if people want to defend a poorly designed faded green dotted automation line as even remotely the same then this is laughable. I am begging for cakewalk to add this feature along with modular efx bin with cells like PT. 

First if one is using the same program that does something a certain way then it would be odd for anyone using that program to do it another way. This addresses the statement about all pros doing one way.

Using wave forms size is not the way to decide loudness. That is what ones ears are for.

Since when did we start relying on our eyes and not our ears? Further depending on the content of the wave file you really can't tell by looking at it just how loud it is. 

Now I understand that some like the idea of increasing the size with a change of level. I am not persuaded that it is a requirement.

I have done just fine with with the more obvious indication of a line i.e. automation.  

Now I understand that some like the idea of increasing the size with a change of level. I am not persuaded that it is a requirement.

 
Not to keep going on and on, but...    I do think it's a great idea - as a reference point.   I know from using SONAR's waveform fade display that what I hear is not always what I see.  Although, I'd imagine it might be a little better when comparing entire waveforms vs. smaller fade areas.   At the same time I do agree that it's not really a "requirement" per se, but rather a very nice feature to have.   And I'm sure I will use it whenever CW adds it, when applicable, just like every other tool. 
 

stevec

Now I understand that some like the idea of increasing the size with a change of level. I am not persuaded that it is a requirement.

 
Not to keep going on and on, but...    I do think it's a great idea - as a reference point.   I know from using SONAR's waveform fade display that what I hear is not always what I see.  Although, I'd imagine it might be a little better when comparing entire waveforms vs. smaller fade areas.   At the same time I do agree that it's not really a "requirement" per se, but rather a very nice feature to have.   And I'm sure I will use it whenever CW adds it, when applicable, just like every other tool. 
 

My problem is with relying on it as a way to compare loudness. 

Seems it would be much quicker to "Visually" adjust THEN use your ears and tweek.  When you write a volume now you almost always need to head back over and over to get it correct.. the visual angle just gets you in the ballpark faster.
Perhaps they will add this feature in an update for those of us looking for it  ; )

http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/FeatureRequest.asp I would expect that the features for X2 are pretty much set so this will probably be part of an upgrade should it get added.

Yep true.  I already did a Feature Request on it.  I think Sonar is the only DAW that doesn't have this feature, so it's probably already on their list  ; )

Using a visual approach is easy to even up loudness and yes John you can rely on it and very well too. As long as the main body of the waveforms match about 95% of the time the levels are perfect right through a series of clip gain changes.

With me I have VU meters showing the ref level all the time. (another reason you should have VU's showing you your stereo mix ALL the time!) So for me my VU is reaching 0db Vu or full scale for most of the track. After adjusting clip gain I simply backtrack a bar or two I can play over the clip gained section and the VU still tells me if there is anything a miss. What I usually see are waveforms that roughly match in size, and the VU's all peaking just the right amount and my ears are also telling me that everything is now nice ad even.

It is a fantastic feature pure and simple and Sonar should have it. Studio One has it and it is also better implemented than in Pro Tools even.

Well now I need that I'm convinced! I will not use Sonar any more unless it has that. 


Sorry I'm just going to muddle along without it. 

That does sound like a great way to handle clip gain. It would be really nice if Cakewalk would impliment it. Not a total deal breaker,though.