Agreed. While matching generalized target curves are really helpful when applying EQ to sound waves in a music production setting, from a listeners perspective EQ is going to rely much more upon personal preference.

I've always struggled balancing the subsonic portion of my mixes with the higher ranges, and often times I've ended up with way too much bass, or not enough making my mix sound very thin and unbalanced. Using Izotope's Ozone 8 Tonal Balance Control, it gives me a visual representation of where my track meets or misses a target curve based on genre. So for instance, I can see that the subsonic region of my mix far exceeds the subs in a target curve for rock music, and then adjust the eq on the instruments that fall within that spectrum accordingly. That's super helpful for getting me into the ballpark of a "recognized tonal range for a specific genre", but I fully expect people to adjust the EQ to their own tastes once I get into that ballpark.

That being said, while I expect people to adjust EQ to taste, I'd also like to point out that EQ choices made in the production phase are often intentional creative decisions. That is to say, sometimes artists may want to intentionally go against accepted norms and try something new with their frequencies. Imagine if 70 years ago someone made an Auto-EQ for the music that was popular at the time and then applied it to dubstep music being produced today - it just wouldn't work. When an artist masters a mix, that's how they want it to sound. Similarly to how a chef might be insulted if you poured a bunch of a salt on the dish they just served you without even tasting it, a producer could be similarly insulted if listeners blindly apply EQ to their work before taking time to appreciate what the artist's original intent was.

Also, these are two sets of measurements of theoretically the same headphones, each with 10 adjustment points, some quite broad, some very narrow. The overall shape of the resulting curve for the same target compensation is similar, but they have some significant differences in the specifics, and they sound different. We have to remember that measurement systems and individual measurement setup can vary quite a bit, so settings from this tool will bake all of that in as well.

As a comparison, based on review of the measured curves in more of a a big picture way, applying a much simpler EQ with a broad 1.5 dB bass lift up to about 100 Hz, another broad lift of about 3 dB around 2 kHz, and a slight drop of about 1 dB centered around 8 kHz brings the bass and vocals up a little but keeps headstage and overall tone intact. Maybe it's this particular DSP implementation, but I would be wary about trying to use any of the precompiled results directly. EQ can have real benefits, but is going to be more personal than automated settings will capture.

EQ phase is relevant if the dry signal has a chance to mix with the EQ output.

Changes in phase is not "distortion". When you end up making large boosts (especially to make sub bass audible), that's when your headphone drivers might start to distort sound. This is fixed with less volume, obviously.

Also, human ears tend to be more sensitive to amplitude than to the phase. Especially if the same filter is applied on both channels, which leaves the phase difference unchanged.

Taste, yes; and individual circumstances. My hearing is so good it might count as a disability, but I know where I have peaks and valleys in my sensitivity and a good EQ can help with the spikes taken by tinnitus ringing from youthful big boom car stereo work and explosives.

I checked their suggestions for my headphones against my EQ profile and theirs is pretty good. I like more lowfreq and much less high freq than the "flat" they're correcting for.

They're offering a great resource for skipping the "what does this set of cans sound like" stage. I probably spent 60hr or more dialing these in when i got them.