I've read a lot of on line critiques that say the K7 ink are yielding very flat (low contrast) results. I have read and do understand the implications of the better tones / gradations. Does the K7 ink set just require more testing before the best results can be realized. I realize the DMAX is not going to be the same as with other media / ink combos, but that aside, sounds like people's description of flat means REALLY flat?

Someone else will probably have a nice and neat short answer, but here's the long one.
Back in the days when Piezography first arrived, Epson printer drivers routinely plugged up shadow information so that anything from 85-88% on down printed the same... ie black. And when highlights got lighter than 10% or so, the dots were spread so far apart as to visible, allowing aepr white to show through. Obvious shortcomings aside, this did give prints a high contrast feel. There were relatively few gray values able to be printed at the shadow and highlight ends. Coming from silver darkroom prints, most of us were used to losing detail at either end anyway, so the notion of a very wide tonal scale was limited to those who really loved to tinker with alternative developer and/or toning processes.
What the Cone inks and the appropriate software offered was a longer tonal scale in which shadow details at 98% could be distinguished from 100% black. Highlights at 2% could be rendered as a visually continuous tone and distingushed clearly from paper white.
As photographers moved from the older Epson drivers to a Cone setup what many experienced was that since shadows were rendering more accurately and highlights were made with "continuous" ink tone the print showed much more detail, BUT also felt flat or low contrast. Essentially the print was now more faithful to the pixel data. THe problem was that photographers were used to getting printer driver-induced contrast boost because of the narrower tonal range.
Once the shock wore off, the solution was to simply edit the files onscreen using the full tonal range from 0-100%. With a Piezoton, K6, or K7 inkset you have a tonal scale divided between up to seven dilutions of black. So if you want deep, heavy shadows you need to place those pixels at 99 or 100%. In areas where you want to see paper white you need to set pixels to 0%.
With StudioPrint and even the 4-dilution PiezoTones I know that I can lay down 2% ink and be off of paper white and lay down 98% ink and still have separation from pure black. The day I realized I could have that long of a printable tonal scale, my jaw hit the floor. Most of my images over the last 6 years have endpoints set at 2% and 98% where I want to hold detail. Specular highlights get set to 0% for paper white while something like a film border would print at 100%.
The K7s offer a smoother gradation and in some cases greater resolution within the existing tonal range along with less clogging.
If you go the K7 route with QTR, you're best off using the pre-built curves that come with it since Cone is using a proprietary method to generate these "profiles" with equipment and techniques that none of us have access to. My sense is that most users are content with the supplied curves. Where you will run into the need for testing is if you want to use a paper for which no curve has been made. You'll need to make an educated guess as to which ones to try and then experiment to see what works. If you really want to tinker and roll your own, then StudioPrint is an option.
To wrap it up, I'd say that with a standard paper from Hahnemühle, Innova, and the like you'll be plug and play with the K7s on any seven ink printer. You'll edit your images withthe notion that all your pixel values will be distinguished on print. You're not going to get a super heavy black like you would using the Epson, Canon or HP inks on glossy media. But Dmax at the expense of image detail is a pyrrhic victory to me. OK, some images do need a rich heavy black to be effective, but if you need that consistently you're better off going with a glossy-compatible inkset anyway. Cone does have one in the works, but nothing's ready to ship yet.
Hope that helps.

THANK YOU, so much for your time in that reply.

I already am sold on the idea that the Dmax I may be achieving now is at the expense of having a crappy tonal. Prior to your book, I was starting to think that fine art prints in the digital realm is still not reality.

The curves you talk about...do you mean print profiles?

Also, though I am going to buy the K7 set and the Quad software, before I buy papers already supported, I want to run through my HAwk Mountain stash of Condor brite white...22ml, 300 gsm. Can I import the Condor printer file into the Quad software? If not, I can match the kind of paper to one paper that is supported and use that profile I suppose?

I guess I am over thinking these things becasue as you alluded too..I actually was at the darkroom point using special developers in film processing, two developer processes in the darkroom, bleach, and selenium... so yes..I agree the medicore results now from my very standard approaches are disheartening. I'm hoping with some good darkroom work (CS2) and these inks, I can start to pull better results.

Some of the tech talk about "placing pixels" and setting "pixels," I'm not uderstanding. I'm off to go read you book now actually and I'll look that up. As I said earlier today in email... I'm looking forward to seeing your show in Soho next weekend.

Thanks again... your passion and love for the medium is great to see, especially in a day and age where for most, it's only about profit and growth.

Ralph