All the EQs are all based on the same data from this review: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-8010a-powered-studio-monitor-review.16866
As staticV3 pointed out, you can ignore the GEQ if you've got access to PEQ software.
The 'AutomaicEQ' is made up of AI...
Use whatever tools you have at your disposal. It doesn't matter if you use Audyssey or a GEQ. What's most important is that you don't boost frequencies in the midrange and treble before you can get your hands on some anechoic data to guide you in making an informed decision.
You could make your own quasi-anechoic measurements:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-make-quasi-anechoic-speaker-measurements-spinoramas-with-rew-and-vituixcad.21860
Even if the speakers are flat on-axis, they might have a directivity error causing off-axis...
The midrange is also being equalized.
You speakers might very well be too bright, but it's better to use anechoic data to correct them.
An appropriate RT for music listening is also an appropriate RT for conversing. I think you should (re)consider if you have struck the right balance between...
You risk degrading the sound quality when you EQ the in-room response to a target curve above the transition frequency.
Here is one example: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/eqing-to-harman-curve-doesnt-give-me-pleasing-results-why-not.45861/page-2#post-1635398
You...
Considering its worst-case distortion level is at -80 dBFS before clipping sets in, it's a bit of a stretch to claim the measurements show an audible problem.
Yes, EQ is the only thing that can effectively address room modes.
You need to measure both speakers again at the same time, preferably using the MMM method. Instead of CSD, you have to use the regular in-room response with a 50 dB vertical scaling and Var smoothing to create the EQ filters...