Presentation skills aside, this is the first time I've seen someone ostensibly knowledgable talk about an "HD Antenna," one that "... takes advantage of the way digital and HD television signals are now broadcast."
This notion is false. Digital and analog broadcasting use identical reception systems, the difference is all in what you do with the signal at the opposite end from the antenna.
There are practical issues to be sure, such as intolerance to drop-outs that make digital TV an all-or-nothing proposition, requiring more antenna for a digital signal than analog. A reduced broadcast spectrum (few VHF-low stations and none above Ch 52/700MHz) also allows for a more compact antenna, especially if VHF-high is also not required. But these are gain- and bandwidth-related, not encoding-related changes so analog/digital remain irrelevant.
By way of review content, I'd like to know what real channels (not virtual) you normally get, what channels this antenna added, and from what transmitter distances? VHF-low is not gone and 2 of 5 stations in my area are VHF-high. If your 30 stations are virtual stations from 10 UHF channels, I could lose stations I currently receive.
Then again, maybe they're on to something, have a unique technology that works better (fractal antennas come to mind at that size and form factor), but I see no evidence of it in this review. At least you didn't quote amplifier gain as an important antenna characteristic (it's not, unless you have a long cable run).
Have fun,
Frank
