Monitors are very low resolution output devices. My Dell UP2516D is 2560x1440x3 sub-pixels for the entire screen, and only aRGB.
The XP-970 is printing 1440x1440 dots per square inch (I do understand the difference between DPI vs PPI, but really irrelevant to this point). I do not know the colour gamut of this printer, but I will bet that it's wider than aRGB.
My R3880 lays down 2880x2880 dots per square inch, is 16 bit, and will print most of the visible part of the PPRGB colour space.
I attribute almost all "noise" seen on monitors as being a result of their extremely low resolution. Monitors simply cannot display smooth colour and resolution transitions, and these appear as noise.
An image has to be as noisy as anything before it even starts to show on even an A2 print. Long before this happens, lack of DR and resolution in the image will make it unusable for larger prints.
What I'm really saying is that printing doesn't 'hide' noise, monitors are displaying 'noise' that isn't really there.
I've read that how the flaws appear in print are also depends on the paper (e.g. glossy vs. matte, smooth vs. textured). I've always hated the effect of noise reduction on the screen, so I've always disabled it completely and just be more careful with sharpening. But I've also wondered if my opinion about noise reduction would change if I started printing.
I remember a few years showing my photos from Olympus C-7070WZ to a gallery/lab owner for a possible exhibition of 16x20 inch prints, he asked me how many megapixels my camera has and when I told him 7 megapixels, he just sighed, lol. With higher res and lower noise and the image stabilization of E-M1 II + 12-100mm, maximum print size probably no longer such a big concern. But I probably would print mostly at 12x16 inches anyways, and put them into 16x20-inch frames.
Based on all I've read about Epson vs. Canon printers suggest Epsons don't have to be turned on and used as frequently, they waste less ink because they don't have automatic/timed cleaning cycles, and they use ink more efficiently due to variable ink droplet size down to 1.5pL. The Epsons don't have replaceable printheads, but more effort is made to keep the nozzles clean unlike the Canons which simply switches to unused nozzles. Ink cost per mL of P900 and Pro-1000 and Pro-300 is not much different, so if I ever get a printer, it will probably be P900. The P700 is definitely out of the question because of the almost 2x ink cost per mL, which is just crazy.