If you go to a sound retailer like CoastalDCC you will have a choice of sounds, and often a choice of decoder. Just because there is no sound package offered already does not mean that Kevin cannot rustle something up based on what is available for similar locos perhaps with a different horn for example. There is a lot that a good retailer can do in the loading that you might not get if you go direct to a sound producer that can only offer his own range of sounds in a specific brand of decoder.
My experience with Zimo and ESU is the same as has been mentioned above - the Zimo decoders you just plug them in and they work, but the ESU ones take an awful lot of faffing about to get them optimised.
When installing DCC sound, the vast majority of people will purchase a decoder from a supplier with a sound package already programmed on it. And they will go to the supplier who provides what they need. In most cases, the combined package will be for a specific prototype, purposely configured and optimised for a specific manufacturer's model of that prototype ie "I want a DCC sound decoder programmed with sound for a BR class 47 and I want it for a Bachmann class 47".
Generally, the only programming changes needed will be to set the loco address, change the volume setting and perhaps, adjust the inertia.
The 'awful lot of faffing about' relates to configuring motor control CV's on ESU decoders - and there are quite a few of them, offering a lot of control.
When buying a pre-programmed decoder, all of that will already be set up so the user will not normally need to touch it. ESU decoders can be plugged in 'and they work' just the same as Zimo.
The only time you need to touch the motor control settings is if you are programming a sound package yourself from scratch or there is a serious configuration problem, so let's not spread misinformation with the intention of directing the OP to your chosen brand of decoder - let them choose for themselves.
The only times I have ever had to fiddle with the motor settings on ESU decoders was for a Dapol class 22 when the vibration of the motor was being relayed to the motion of the model, but this wasn't a fault of the decoder - it was because of the gear ratio in the model was too high such that the motor couldn't go slow enough at low speed without vibrating. The other time was for the Kernow class 41 where I will agree that the ESU was an absolute pig to set up, but again, not a fault of the decoder. The choice of motor simply hadn't been tested with sound decoders and was a crap motor, not fit for purpose.
Why the loco manufacturers persist in using ESU, and fitting a limited range of legacy sockets just to accommodate ESU decoders I don't know when they could standardise on the PLuX sockets and just use Zimo decoders and make us all happy.
There are two simple answers to this question.
The first is history. When DCC sound first became popular, ESU were the first to become well known and the 8 pin socket was the only socket. Zimo wasn't well known in the UK and Zimo products were much more expensive. Of course today. that has changed.
Secondly, business arrangements. I believe that early DCC systems produced by Bachmann were essentially obsolete Lenz 2-digit products. I believe that today's 'Dynamis' is essentially a rebadged ESU product. Obviously, it makes sense to use decoders and sockets from the same manufacturer.
But times are changing and will almost certainly continue to do so as new developments emerge.
I guess we just have to use our buying power and favour buying locos that have a PluX socket over the others! Next-18 and Next-18s is not too bad, but it is not as functional as the similar sized PluX-16, and why have two Next-18 standards when one will do!
And what difference will that make ? Manufacturers will use the socket which they perceive as being the most suitable and cost effective for what they want to achieve. Not much point in mandating a Plux socket in a Hattons P tank when it won't even fit!
Certainly agree that one standard is desirable - I thought that's where the 21 pin socket was supposed to take over, but then a whole load of other 'standards' (Plux and Next) popped up! To me, the appropriate socket is one that has enough connections to service all the inputs and outputs of a decoder, which is proven reliable, cost effective and physically fits in a model. I would suggest that given the variety of different sizes of locos we have and the variation in function requirements (steam locos have no lights, diesels have plenty), there is no 'one size fits all' solution.