“It was not clearly higher quality.”
Shows Betamax was not clearly higher quality.
Full comment
We've all collectively fallen for Sony's marketing for Betamax. It was not clearly higher quality. this video
Comparing Beta & VHS on Quality: Was Beta Really Better?
711K views · Jun 21, 2017 · 9:51 · 0 HN recommenders · 4 mentions · discussed 2022–2026
Technology Connections compares Betamax and VHS picture quality using footage from a 1979 RCA VCR and argues the Beta quality advantage was largely marketing.
Why Hacker News points people here: Cited as evidence that Betamax was not meaningfully better than VHS.
“Technology Connections did a teardown of why Betamax wasn't better than VHS”HN comment, 2025
What Hacker News said 4
“the difference was so small as to be inconsequential”
Tests found Beta's quality difference negligible.
Full comment
In tests done by Technology Connections, the difference was so small as to be inconsequential. It was technically better at its slowest speed, but you could barely perceive the difference and more importantly Sony disabled the feature in the vast majority of machines sold. People wanted more than 60 minutes out of one tape. They wanted 2 hours. this video
“Technology Connections did a teardown of why Betamax wasn't better than VHS”
Teardown of why Betamax wasn't better than VHS.
Full comment
This just reminds me of the people who whine about Betamax (or CCS) being better. FWIW: Technology Connections did a teardown of why Betamax wasn't better than VHS: this video And the whole series if you actually enjoy watching these things: link
“Quality comparison”
Quality comparison of Beta and VHS.
Full comment
While a worse format surely could have won something like the video wars, it doesn't seem that VHS was in fact the worse format overall: link (Part 2: link . Quality comparison: this video ) Beta was basically optimised for one thing, reasonable cassette size, and the tradeoffs turned out probably not to be worth it.