Thanks, Doug Gray, for your comparative analysis.
I have come in on this conversation quite late in the piece. I use Argyll with an X-Rite DTP70 for scanning targets but I also own an i1Pro V2 so I have an option to use this for generating profiles too.
My experience through observation rather than measurement is that profiles produced with ArgyllCMS are noticeably more neutral in their grey scale production that those I have produced using the i1Pro, however, in my study I have not been able to sort out what number is being quoted when DE2000 figures are quoted. For instance, in your initial post you have quoted low DE figures of significantly less than 1 but the Argyll command, "profcheck" outputs three figures: errors(CIEDE2000) max, avg and RMS. In addition, the Argyll command "colprof" produces three more figures that are usually higher: peak error, average and RMS.
I presume that you are quoting the errors(CIEDE2000) avg figure generated by "profcheck" but would be grateful for a confirmation.
On a related note I picked up that the X-Rite profiles use a black point compensation in the A2B0, Intent-0 table and ArgyllCMS doesn't. Does this have the effect of increasing the gamut volume and make it appear that gamut volumes generated by i1Profiler tare larger than gamut volumes generated by ArgyllCMS when using comparable targets, on the same paper, printer and ink combination?
Best wishes
Rob Wignell