Digital BW, The Print

I have looked through past comments, and most of them are fairly old 
at this point, so from the perspective of today - how much of an 
upgrade is the 2400 over the 2200.  Not looking for a feature 
comparison, just qualitative (which is valuable info from this 
group).  I know it has the next generation of inks, and an extra 
black, etc....I have been reading...just never seen a print.

Some background:  On the 2200, I can get pretty nice prints on matte 
papers, with or without QTR, and with QTR I have been able to get 
good prints on luster type paper (Epson Prem Luster and Ilford Smooth 
Pearl).  Bronzing is usually not too bad, but not exactly good 
either, and sometimes terrible.  No metamerism.  Still, I think the 
prints couild be better.

Everyone raved that the 2400 cured all kinds of ills.  But then 
again, I recall when many people were saying the 2200 marked the 
arrival of true B&W right out of the box.  Not.  It was way better 
than anything else at the time, but a move up from "terrible" is not 
much of an endorsement.

But...I have seen more postive comments on the 2400 over time, so I 
am strongly considering the upgrade.  But then again, I see people 
headed for 3rd party inks and RIPs which, for the 2200, were 
necessary to fix some pretty bad problems.

So....the 2400....is it "for real?"  Will I pull a print out of the 
tray and say, "oh yeah....that's is MUCH better?"  Or will I stare at 
it with a loup and say, "uh....yeah....maybe there is a little 
improvement here... I think....."