kill all conceited morons

never actually for one moment addresses the question whether the technical quality of Betamax was better than that of VHS, as the "myth" claims

Indeed, the main thing that didn't fit was the idea was that Betamax was "technically superior". Standing in a shop at the time, there was absolutely no visible difference in picture quality, and some reviews had found that VHS's quality was superior.

Later I found out that Betamax had owned the market, but lost it because Sony got one simple decision wrong. It chose to make smaller, neater tapes that lasted for an hour, whereas the VHS manufacturers used basically the same technology with a bulkier tape that lasted two hours.

"And although Betamax playing times were extended, they never caught up with VHS."

Then you need to read the article again.

So there you have it. Imperceptible quality differences between VHS and Betamax along with VHS's longer playing time clearly makes it technically superior.

The issue of longer playing time is irrelevant, unless the shorter playing time of Betamax cassettes was due to an inherent limitation of their technology, rather than a bad design and marketing decision.

Dude, he doesn't come with any fact sheet on the speficis on the actual technical data. After all, he directly mention that he can't see any difference between VHS and Betamax, and in the process doesn't say anything about the quality of the machines. Usually the purity of the copper in the components ..etc dictates the quality.

So look up the information on your own? I don't see the problem here. If you can prove him wrong do so but I've checked the primary sources and he's on the money.

No? I just state what is commonly accepted, that's the prove itself, if you challenge that, the burden of proof lies on you.

So, since the majority of people commonly accept that a deity exists, the burden of proof lies with me?

The issue of longer playing time is irrelevant, unless the shorter playing time of Betamax cassettes was due to an inherent limitation of their technology, rather than a bad design and marketing decision.

I belive the difference lies in scientific claim versus a supersicious claim.

No? I just state what is commonly accepted, that's the prove itself, if you challenge that, the burden of proof lies on you.

The playing time is a technical specification of video tapes and VHS were twice as long - therefore twice as good. Whatever the reason Betamax vids were shorter it was "technically" relevant.

Picture quality is also a technical specification. What's clear from the article is that you would have needed a very good screen to notice any difference and some people didn't even think any difference could be perceived, or even thought VHS were better.

Even more, the difference in vertical resolution was only 10 extra lines in Betamax. Unfortunately, this extra resolution of Betamax was dropped quickly to match VHS and enable Betamax tapes to hold more. So even that imperceptible technical superiority was short lived. That's probably where the myth got its start at.

Which is wrong, and pointing out at that time that Betamax were good products that even - in this one area - outperformed VHS was an interesting point.

Eight tracks.

Though you could probably say the same about maxi now.

Even more, the difference in vertical resolution was only 10 extra lines in Betamax. Unfortunately, this extra resolution of Betamax was dropped quickly to match VHS and enable Betamax tapes to hold more. So even that imperceptible technical superiority was short lived. That's probably where the myth got its start at.

I think the myth began with the meme that Betamax failed because they were rubbish.

Which is wrong, and pointing out at that time that Betamax were good products that even - in this one area - outperformed VHS was an interesting point.

The real pain with eight tracks were that they used a single reel that spun from the inside and rewound on the outside. If your tape machine tried to eat it you could never get the tape back on the reel. Only a machine could fix it. Whereas cassette tapes were just like reel-to-reels and could easily be rewound with a #2 pencil.