Developers, what stops you from writing something like Eventide multiprocessors?

Nothing. What processor can't you find as a VSTi?

Eventide even make them...

http://www.eventide.com/AudioDivision/Products/PlugIns.aspx

BTW, what's an "Eventide 98000"?

What's not covered? A decent harmonizer to name one.
But if you listen to 8000 demos, you may notice that the existing plugins are far behind.



________________________________________________
98000 just meant what Eventide did plus more.

The average plugin developer isn't going to be able to spend the time (years), money (to buy reference hardware from Eventide(*) ) and effort that is required for a faithful duplication of the hardware. It might result by necessity in a very expensive product and thus a very risky project, as expensive plugins are often ridiculed and dismissed, for example here in KVR. So what's in it for a plugin developer, as they they could just release yet another compressor or EQ, at much less effort and risk?

(*) This obviously is required. How else would the developer have any real idea about how the original hardware sounds and operates...?

As to why Eventide themselves might not have released plugins that sound exactly the same as their hardware, the answer should be obvious, but I'll state it anyway : hardware can more justifiably cost more than plugin software, so it makes sense for them to have some added value in the hardware and put in a bit worse DSP algorithms in their plugins. The sound quality has nothing to do with the processing happening on dedicated hardware or in a generic CPU in a plugin form.

Who buys yet another EQ or compressor? If there is such a market I may consider releasing a number of them in a few months:)

Probably not many people, but at least the developer likely didn't have to spend years developing those

In addition to a very cool 3d user interface, do I also need one of those "cool artist with sunglasses who happens to like my yet another EQ" testimonials published as ads? Is that a part of the business model? (That's a real question, I'm serious...)

What stops you from writing it yourself?

I am not a developer and do not aspire.

My question was meant to trigger a disussion on what it takes to develop a something perhaps more worthwhile than "Yet" another compressor.

Presumably, a lot of joint effort, but It would not necessarily require buyiung a copy of Eventide. Why not invent something new?

I wonder how the Eventide team started, and find it probable that they developed gradually. But apparently in new directions.

Do not take it as a critique of anybody's efforts. It must be fun - and demanding - to create an algorithm modelling sound.

Still...

I'm not convinced that current VSTs are behind in terms of sound. Proof: everybody is using VSTs and hardware is becoming more and more obsolete.

Remember that the human ear is very vulnerable to suggestion - if you listen to something thinking that it sounds better, it will sound better, even though it doesn't. That's why audiophiles swear that vinyl or vacuum tubes sound better (they don't), or that some people swear by analog synths (if by analog you mean the Roland JP8000), why plugins with nicers GUIs "sound better", etc...

- For EQs that are not non-linear (ie no hidden distortion or compressors), there are only really 2 types of EQ: minimum phase (ie parametric filters) and linear phase (ie FFT based). Everything else is identical, either because they use the same algos (RBJ filters), or because they use different algos but the result is the same (and you can null them out), and there's no difference between the 300$ SSL EQ plugin and ReaEQ. Some EQs are also known to manipulate parameters too (especially Q).

- Reverbs are more complicated, but after implementing a cheap open source algo everybody rips off in a VST (the one from the OpenAL soft source code, not freeverb), it compared pretty well to many VSTs worth multiple hundreds of dollars (Lexicon plugins).

As far as I know, the processing in outboard DSPs and VSTs is pretty much the same, the only difference is in the branding really (and they are programmed by different people which might have better or worse taste and ideas, of course).

Reverb is a funny thing because of the subtlety and possibility. The perfect reverb is always within arms reach if you ask me. The algorithm makes a difference but I do think the nature of reverberation is far more simple. It is simply an addition and extension of the sound, so what could be so complicated?

I would think Eventide has patented their pitch-shifting devices, so maybe this is why there is not more of similar stature.

Yeah, after all, even the universe is a simple collection of atoms, right?
If you try hard enough perhaps you can persuade yourself, but still seems like there is something fishy about that reasoning.

But what if the atoms were salad dressing?

Your best bet would be for enough people to either badger Eventide or Soundtoys for something like this.

Like salad dressing of diffuse reflections?