If you looks closer to these graphs then you'll notice that this is just the way the graphs are aligned - it seems that bass level is the same or even higher on Zero II - until you notice that an area from about 400 Hz to 1 kHz follows Harman curve on Zero:2 graph and dips below it on Chu II graph. I aligned both graphs on Squiglink at 1K to make the difference obvious. Of course, you can align at bass and then say that Chu II has dip in mids - which is really the same thing, with the same end result - bass overshadows mids to some extent and sounds bloated. Note that Zero:2 already has a bit of high bass excess which doesn't yet sound bloated to me, just "warm". I prefer to EQ it down a bit (as in Amir's EQ) but I can perfectly enjoy listening to Zero:2 without any EQ. BTW, Amir in his own EQ also pulls down a broader region of bass in the case of Chu II.
Hmm, I think there is some confusion here. Zero:2 vs Chu II - I can listen to both without EQ, I prefer Zero:2 (mainly because of the bloated bass on Chu II but not only).
Gate, however, is a different story - it doesn't only have more mids and lower treble, it has notably less bass, this combination makes Gate stock sound without EQ annoying to me. As in physically irritating. Quite possible simply because due to the lack of bass I raise the volume to get bass to the level I prefer and then the higher frequences become too loud. So, yeah, simply unlistenable without EQ for prolonged periods.
Of course, with EQ (e.g. Amir or Maiky76) they all sound significantly more similar to each other. Still, I prefer the sound of Zero:2 even after EQ.
It'll to loud enough to risk almost immediate hearing damage, so please be careful!
