You've reached the wrong conclusion here, now that you all have a lot more experience with these, you ought to revisit this issue. EAC is a very good tool for this, if used at all correctly.

Look at the images in this post, I added the bold:This post (about halfway through the thread) has analyses with a much shorter time frame than the first ones posted; and the FA presumably has only music in it, not all the other stuff that can be on a track. I'm betting the first FA and SA were whole track (clapping, voice, etc.), not just music. EAC looks to be working just fine to me, as a few others have noted here.

I think what you've proved in this thread is:

- don't look at whole-track analyses. When you look at music-only, shorter time frames, the results in any program are much clearer.
- in particular, the first FA posted here was probably for the whole track. That's not going to be effective all of the time, especially in unusual cases.

The comments also show the tendency to read too much into too little info, though now that everyone has more experience with this it probably wouldn't happen again. But people were making all kinds of conclusions based on an odd example and too little info. Wehn you get something that seems a bit off the wall, like the first post here, you really have to say, let's look closer.

This analysis is best done when you actually have the tracks. But if you're going to do it with screenshots, you really need about 3-4 views, over the right time frames, to analyze a track. (Though by the time someone gets done doing those, you'd hope they'd have a good idea themselves, except on the odd cases.) Some info here:

http://wiki.etree.org/index.php?page=SourceAnalysis

As far as the FFT size - that graph at 65k is unreadable to me. It's probably a matter of personal preference; and it may be worth trying a few options; but I find something around 1-2k works for me.