Overall, I applaud this effort!

A couple of (theoretical) points for those doubting the merits of such an approach:
The loss you get when converting from analog to digital is much less than you'd think, even with relatively cheap hardware. There's basically two things that can be affected: dynamic range (the number of different "steps" of volume you can reproduce) and frequency (highest pitch note you can reproduce).

For what it's worth, the human hearing in optimal conditions (young adults that have not been to too many concerts) can hear about 100db of dynamic range and frequencies up to 20khz. Especially your frequency range goes down quickly with age and wear-and-tear, dropping down to something like 18khz for most of us rock fans.

For dynamic range, a vinyl record can reproduce roughly 76db of dynamic range, a CD with 16 bit audio about 90db. So, a CD is better able to match the abilities of the human hearing than vinyl records. Or otherwise put, you should be able to perfectly reproduce the dynamic range of a vinyl recording on CD.

For frequencies, the rule is that you divide the digital frequencies by two. So, a CD with a sampling frequency of 44.1khz can reproduce frequencies up to 22khz, more than any human can hear. A vinyl record can give you roughly up to 20khz, so again below what CD can give you.

So, why does a vinyl record typically sound better than a CD? The difference is in how engineers tackle the mastering of each medium. For CD's, targeted at the masses it needs to be as loud as possible which means losing details due to compression (the volume wars). For vinyl, targeted at audiophiles the mastering is done in such a way that as much of the dynamic range is reserved while still sounding punchy. Effectively putting a mastered-for-vinyl version on CD would kill almost all perceptible differences between the two media. Digital gets an unduly bad rep because of this.

So, if you take a vinyl record and push it to a lossless format on PC you should have something that is virtually indistinguishable from the original. Most of the loss will probably happen in the cables, which is still difficult to discern for the average listener.

If you want to do a blind test, you can record a vinyl record on PC and output it straight back to the amplifier/speakers you typically use to play your records and do a blind A/B test. If you don't use REALLY low end equipment (e.g. laptop soundcard) I will bet you won't be able to discern it in a completely honest test.

Wait, you asked a question, I provided my answer. Don't think that after 43 pages, I haven't realized that you won't be able to convince me that there's a greater reason than tradition and emotional conservatism for some Americans to keep opposing stricter gun laws.

The one thing that I have picked up over the past couple of weeks, albeit not necessarily from this forum, is that change is a-coming in the US; that gradually what you and some others deem impossible is in fact already happening. I'm anxious to hear what Biden's proposal is going to look like next week...

And, for what it's worth, I feel I made some good points in my previous post, I would've appreciated at least an attempt at debate instead of a simple dismissal

Might not be anybody here, but the NRA is, in fact they are arguing that there are already too many regulations and limitations... And the perception is that there's a lot of support for the NRA's position among American citizens.

And just for clarity, I understand the need to have a constitution that protects the people from government, I'm all for that. Democracy is the greatest value we have and we as people should protect it at all costs. That's why freedom of speech is so important, that's why what you really need to protect is the right to vote, the right to form a political party, freedom of the press, unbiased news organizations, equality of people, etc. How does a very specific right for a very specific thing such as the right to own and bear a gun fit in that list? It's just so arbitrary, might as well be the right to put anti-personnel mines in your front yard, at least no one can argue that's not for self-defense...

What I meant with the glorification of gun ownership remark is this: there really is not that much of a difference between the effective gun ownership laws and restrictions in the US and other - comparably free - countries, and yet nowhere in the world are there as many mass shootings as in the US. Obviously the reason for that is not the general availability of guns: as I pointed out before other countries have comparable gun-to-people ratios. However, in no other country is there an organization such as the NRA that claims the moral high ground when they actively promote guns as a solution to problems of violence. The fact that these guys are not mocked into irrelevance speaks volumes to the reverence some (and apparently a large number of) Americans have for things that are designed to kill. Just a general change in attitude would go a long way towards solving a lot of those problems, and the ability to challenge the NRA's position without getting lost in almost religious discussions about the 10 commandm... sorry, amendments.

So yes, we all should recognize owning guns as a right, but not more than that. Having more of them is not gonna solve anything

Yeah, I get that. But there are so many limitations that are rightfully put in place by government that haven't always been there and still made sense to introduce eventually. For instance, here in Belgium, up until 1977 anyone over 18 could just apply for a driver's license and get it without having to take any tests. It had been like that since the late 1800's and the law had just never been amended. Yet, at a certain point they had to admit that cars are potentially dangerous and just allowing everyone to drive one without tests wasn't a sane proposition anymore. So the law was changed.I'm sure there's comparable examples in US law as well...

It's worth noting that Belgium, a country of roughly 11 000 000 people, had about 2 000 000 gun owners in 2006, which is a ratio of 1 gun per 5.5 people. The US has around 80 000 000 guns for roughly 311 000 000 people, or 1 gun per 4 people. So it's fare to state that the difference in ratios between gun owners and non-gun owners isn't that big between the two countries. In 2006, we had our first big public shooting incident: a whackjob shot 3 people, including one infant (2 years old). By the end of that year, we radically overhauled our legislation from being fairly liberal (sporting and hunting guns could be purchased over the counter, without waiting period; for other guns you needed to apply for a one-time license up front) to the strictest in the world (literally). Now, you need a license for every type of gun you want to buy. The license needs to be renewed every 5 years and in order to get the license you need to pass medical and skill-related tests... every 5 years. If you don't, you not only lose the right to own your gun, your gun is also taken from you, no compensation.

But do note, it's still legal to own a gun, you just need to get a license first... a meaningful license that includes tests and medical checks, just like for a car.

So, I guess my question is why was this possible in Belgium while it is not possible in the US? What's so different between Belgians and Americans?

Yup, I have to admit to the same... and I was in my early 20's when she was at the height of her popularity. There's no excuse, but there you have it... I still like here early albums quite a bit