If the theory of most effects is similar, then how come there are so many incarnations of it (i.e. different plug-ins)?

[soundmodel]

If the theory of most effects is similar, then how come there are so many incarnations of it (i.e. different plug-ins)?

Particularly, I'm often confused about (as some others are as well), why does there need to be hundreds of EQs, when it seems like they're in theory based on the same ideas. Then they possibly distinguish by number of features (e.g how many filter types they implement) and GUI.

But if the core, i.e. the filtering, does not really alter that much (and it shouldn't, because general principles should apply), then it seems redundant.

And I don't find that comparing these to e.g. making different kinds of breads when the "theory of a bread" remains similar is appropriate. Since I think breads might have more variation in flavour and texture, than EQs.

OTOH, if they have passed through the efforts of R&D, then someone has thought them as viable and important?

Or perhaps we're in fact seeing a bloated market similar to music or app store? Where there are many products, but a large portion of them are bought very little if at all.

[fese]

Why do you make music when there are already so many incarnations of tracks that basically sounds similar


A lot of developers are passionate about what they do and have their own ideas about how a plugin should be designed and sound. And of course they are just trying to make a living in the music tech business. Creating really innovative technologies is time-consuming and doesn’t necessarily pay off because people in general want more of the same, not something radically different.

Also, it’s about workflows. Different people have different needs. I am quite happy that I can chose the EQ plugin that suits me. Just imagine there would be only one EQ plugin and it would be ReaEQ. The Horror!

In the end of course, it is the same reason why there are dozens of different yoghurt brands in the supermarket’s cooling shelf. it’s the economical system we live in, based on growth and consumption.

[xbow]

If in theory the idea of a filter or EQ is the same, the ideal filter or eq is completely transparent, not changing the sound beyond boosting or attenuating certain frequencies. But in the world of analog gear, different components add different harmonics, coloring the sound. In theory, you could call these imperfections. In practice, they sound good, so plugin manufacturers try to emulate these characteristics. Since different emulations of different models sound better in different contexts and depending on personal taste, they are not redundant if you care for these nuances.

Even if we stick to the idea of a fully transparent implementation, there are many variables that influence the sound, e.g., how steep is the filter, how wide is a frequency band in an EQ. So if you'd want full control over all these, you'd need quite a complex user interface. Personally, I find compressors very interesting in this regard. Some are very simple, some very complex, and the differences in sound can be drastic.

And then there's workflow, as the previous post mentioned. Some people prefer a plugin with just a few controls and a certain flavor (but they may want different flavors for different situations), others want full control over a certain aspect at which point plugins are differentiated by whether they provide this control through a pleasant UI.

So while there is some justification for variations of the same idea in the market, I think it's fair to say it is a bloated market and most people probably have more choices available in their plugin folders than they can handle. One other thing that strikes me is that a new product in the market will often compete against products that are 10+ years old, haven't changed (except for compatibility updates), but are still regarded as some of the best in their category.

[DaveClark]

But if the core, i.e. the filtering, does not really alter that much (and it shouldn't, because general principles should apply), then it seems redundant.

If you study filter theory in detail you will see that your premise that all filter theory is so similar that implementations are redundant is incorrect. After that, there are the issues that have already been mentioned. In other words, not only are you neglecting differences in implementations, engineering decisions, workflow and so on, you're starting from the wrong place.

[xoxos]

you're starting from the wrong place.

the replies went pretty well

[pawder]

money

[psynical]

> if cars (shoes, milk, clothes, etc) are all the same, why are there so many different brands and types?

[Michael L]

The theory of most music is similar; a lot of little differences are what make the difference between nothing & truly something. How many songs are great cuz the guitar effect? Eg Boston.

[DJ Warmonger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

[soundmodel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

I would say it's possibly "individual evolution".

That is, people come to develop their own version, since they don't want others' versions.

[whyterabbyt]

If the theory of most effects is similar, then how come there are so many incarnations of it (i.e. different plug-ins)?

Same reason there's more than one kind of jam.

[AKJ]

If the theory of construction is the same for all buildings why are there so many buildings?

[Tj Shredder]

What baffles me much more, is that a collection like AmpliTube has so many fans. In the old days a guitar player would have one amp to rule them all. She would choose one and learn it in and out. Celebrities might use 3 maybe. Why should I need so many? Just because I can? I would die from choice overflow and wouldn’t be able to master one of them…
Same for channel strips…
This whole market survives because of GAS. But this might be a good thing in the end, it keeps also new or better stuff coming up…

[Ploki]

True.
I boiled down my "guitar amp" duties to a super simple chain which i prefer over most amp sim plugs:
- Kelvin
- freebie Voxengo Overtone GEQ (frequencies tuned like Mesa Boogie EQ)
- freebie Voxengo Boogex, stock IRs + some third party IRs.

The catch is that both Boogex and Kelvin have compensated pre-emphasis EQ, which is the key to get a good guitar drive.

To make a single guitar stereo I use Kelvin's built in widener (Which only widens harmonics, not original signal), and load Boogex in Dual Mono to use different IRs for L/R.

Sometimes i might throw voxengo Powershaper or freebie TubeAmp after Kelvin if one of the many, many flavours of Kelvin don't suite me, or i might throw a compressor before Boogex to give it that power amp sag feel.

Coming from an actual Mesa Boogie Mark V, i had BIAS, still have Softube Amp Room and Fuse Audio F-59, tried all NeuralDSP.
From hard amps i had in my life: JCM900, JCM800 (4x12 boxes) MesaBoogie Quad Preamp + 50/50 (2x12 custom oversized box) and last Mark V (+1x12 semi-open Classic Lead 80), before going 100% ITB.
The closest to my actual boogie is not amplitude but ML Sound Mark V. Amplitube Mesa sounds NOTHING like mesa boogie.

[jamcat]

In Soviet Union there is only one plugin: the People’s Plugin.