I'm going to write a review on the CM as soon as I get time.
I'm not paid one cent for doing so, nor do I have anything to sell on my site etc.
Yet am I biased? Of course who isn't. Fair though of course, and more important open to all others opinions.
Now here's what I found while making the first profiles with the CM on a MAc (don't have time yet to see if Windows is still buggy).
The first profile set (first page, then second extrapolated patch set), went very well. The little thing is so easy to use. I didn't imagine it to be that easy considering my first spectro was a LightSource Colortron.
I then compared the generated profile from this to other profiles with factory or Profile Maker 5.08 for the same paper , same i1 Pro, same calibrations.
In overall volume it comes up slightly ahead of others. The shape of the repartition of colours shows slightly more green in PM profiles, but so slightly more red in the CM profile. Dmax is about the same with no deficiencies on either. PRoblem is I don't have the license for Monaco any longer, nor can I use command line for Argyll. So the two better profilers are not available for my tests.
The curves in the CLUTs are smoother with a TC9.18 chart and PM. I expect that the greens are different because of the nature of the spectrum of the LED produces for measurement data, over the Tungsten bulb in my rev A i1.
No proofing the first profile (s).
It seems the CM profile lacks a bit of red in the yellowish / orange image areas. Overall there is less saturation or better said brighter rendering of deep saturated colours. Greyscale on step wedges perfect. No colour cast, no banding, just perfect.
Overall the images printed with number 1 profile are very well balanced, very very close to the PM profiles and much more than acceptable. I had an idea it would be good but didn't expect with two letter sized prints a profile could be this good.
Now optimising the profiles. Seems nothing is stated in the docs that the colours in your image to be used for optimising the profile are sent as raw rgb numbers. Make an experiment, convert a rich image to sRGB and the same to ProPhoto. Toggle between these in ColorMunki and you find the colours extracted will be much more intense on the sRGB image.
My optimizations hardly changed a thing in the profile in the greens I was trying to extend. The patches extracted are not what I think corrected for populating the chart patch creation. I tried 3 or 4 different images and the printed charts had many white or black patches. I suppose then you must make your own palette to use as a chart patch builder to optimise as you like.
So there you go first tries done.
PS The monitor calibrations and profiles are about equal both the i1 D2 and Match on Easy mode, and the CM. They are different, both good, but i1 Match and the i1 Pro was better (well on my MacBook PRo LED.