Just to let you & others know, there is an alternative to Jon's system. I am a fan of dedicated B&W inks, but I found I wanted more control than the Cone inks provided. So, I started pursuing alternatives and developed what I call the "variable tone" approach. The latest and best iteration of that, which is now in my 7800 and 9800 is described here:
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone-2016.pdf .
In general, my inksets that have "Eboni" in the title -- the trade name of MIS's MK ink -- are for matte paper only. If the name has "glossy" in the title, they are for both matte and glossy. Matte only allows the use of the open source, generic dilution base that allows DIY mixers to drop costs to a fraction of commercial inksets. The glossy base, while way less expensive than OEM inks, is more expensive than the DIY matte-only generic base.
Note that the above inkset is designed to allow me to print on Arches Hot Press (140 lb.) watercolor paper ("full sheets" 22x30 inches). That is why it has 2 MK ink positions. I do not recommend this for most. One has to be very careful to iron the deckle edges or they'll crash your heads. My preference for Arches is based, in part, on the fact that it's not a laminated product. In my view, it's the most archival substrate available. If you want your work to look good 500 years from now, this is what you want. Otherwise, stick with inkjet paper. Then again, if you cut the deckle edge off Arches, you have the best for the least -- again. Arches is not as smooth as inkjet paper and has a modest dmax. But it's still my favorite for a museum quality print. I use Museum glass and float Arches full sheets, which their deckle edges, for the classiest display. That said, I use a roll of satin paper for most of my volume and sales. I dispaly it un-glazed, protected somewhat by 4 light coats of sprayed Print Shield acrylic. Very few buyers appreciate/care about the attributes of Arches.
For most people who print on inkjet paper, the variation of this inkset I made for the 3800 is probably the way to go. See
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone.pdf, (or
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/3880-Eboni-Variable-Tone-01-2017-fr.pdf if you speak French and what matte paper only).
Note that while I publish my profiles where I have them, I'm not in the ink business. If you want a turnkey system that is ready to go, use Jon's. Those profiles and support are what you're paying for.
For B&W printing, which is the only type I do, my basic approach is to have 100% carbon in all but one of the positions -- in various dilutions -- and then have a single bluish "toner" ink in the remaining position. For the toner ink I use a blend of Canon Lucia EX inks for the color. While carbon pigments are the strongest/most lightfast there are, the Canon Lucia EX (not "Pro") pigments are the strongest/most lightfast color pigments that are available to us.
Note that while I did a lot of fade testing myself, I now rely on Mark's outstanding work at
https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ -- simply the best fade testing information available.
Note also that I use QuadToneRip (QTR) for my printing. (See
http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html ) Again, this, in my view, is simply the best for the least approach.
When we do just a little of the mixing ourselves -- nothing complicated at all -- we end up with a final inkset that is the best and for the least money. Particularly if you print only on matte paper such that you can use the open source, generic dilution base (matte only) (outlined in my PDFs), the ink costs drop so low they become rather irrelevant in the overall process. I, personally, now use a Red River Ultra Pro Satin 44" roll in my 9800 for most printing. As such, I use the glossy compatible base/mix described at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone-2016.pdf.
For years I worked informally (no financial or other connection) with MIS Associates. They set up a page that attempts to group the inputs I've use. See
https://www.inksupply.com/roarkslab.cfm . In fact, I now have enough volume to buy directly from the supplier of these inks -- STS Inks. The inputs are not listed on the STS webpage, however. (If you do volume work, contact me about how to tap into this source.)
I have no financial connection to any or these suppliers and don't recommend this DIY approach for someone who doesn't want to get a little ink on their hands. But for those who want the most control of their process and art, it's an approach that you might find very satisfying. And most of us don't mind saving a bunch of money either.
Enjoy,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com