What are the thoughts on this?
Does it really matter much at all?
Considering differences in probes and screen uniformity, etc. maybe it doesn't matter nearly as much as getting the expanded gamut, even if it does matter.
Do the stronger, more peaked primaries in a wide gamut make it harder to maintain similar apparent white balance between different displays both for individual and multiple viewers?
Is this the one negative with 3 primary wide gamut monitors? (apparently particular types of >3 primary wide gamut displays can be designed to reduce viewer metamerism though)
Do people usually use Eizo's 10 degree settings and NEC's metamerism setting as general practice?
Apparently it is very tricky to even design a universal metamerism function since the required function varies from person to person.
One little interesting paper I found:www.iscc.org/aic2001/abstracts/oral/Koenig_et_al.doc
I've also located a number of comments where they say that if a bunch get together and look at some calibrate sRGB and some calibrated wide gamut displays that many more people disagree on various color matches on the wide gamuts since the more intensely spiked spectrum of the wide gamut monitor makes person to person different far more apparent (people have cones that react in slightly different ways and corneas with slightly different transfer functions and sRGB monitors don't make these differences from person to person as apparent).
(COmparing my DTP94 calibrated sRGB monitor to my wide gamut one using both factory sRGB or puck calibrated sRGB mode, the white balance and certain shades certainly don't look the same at all, even if I use the metamerism switch. Of course, in this case, the DTP94 could well account for almost all of the difference. I really need an EyeOne Pro spectrophotometer to adjust both. I will do a quick calib of the other monitor with the NEC puck and then compare.)