HD radio and old antennas

Techno-hype.....if it'll sell a few more antennas then I guess they figure it's worth it. Your old antennas work just fine and probably better than most new ones. Most of the new D-ready antennas are just variations of dipoles and there's nothing new there except the packaging.

Ron

Yes, they will.

I wouldn't get too worried about hd radio as it looks as though there's not much demand for hd radio. Also it's really not HD but more like MP3's that have been compressed some more, in other words many stations quality will go down from bad. NPR stations seem to have high broadcasting standards but also are equipping with the Ibiquity towers. For home use there's a little available in some receivers tuner sections and no tuners that I'm aware that have been released for consumers and nobody seems eager to get them to market. Lots of hd towers have been bought and installed but they're just wasting electricity as most people don't know they exist and these same people seem happy with Sirius and XM radio. No doubt the radio stations who bought into this are wondering where are all of these new listeners that cost us so much money.

The Terk antennas are a bit more involved than dandified dipoles. It's just that they made sure to slip in the term "digital ready" on their newer models.

And Warnerwh you are incorrect about the quality of the broadcast. An HD FM station can broadcast at a maximum of 96 kbps and the codec is HDC. HDC is the original PAC codec designed by Ibiquity with Spectral Band Replication and channel correlation added to enhance the efficiency. (I wonder if it is also using Perceptual Noise Substitution.)
Due to the fact most radio stations will be broadcasting in analog as well I think the bit rate will be limited to 48 kbps at first (this is an assumption most are making, I don't have it on good authority). That's the same bit rate as satellite radio but with a more advanced codec. The codec should easily be more efficient than an mp3 of twice its bit rate. 48 kbps AAC+ sounds about as good as 96 kbps mp3 to my ears.
HD radio also has the ability to broadcast in surround sound (personally, I'd prefer they keep it stereo to maximize quality).

The big benefit will be for AM - no more noise. For most consumers the quality of mass market AM tuners is Scott Tissue quality. The hardware for digital radio receivers is not cutting edge - manufacturers will quicly start building HD radio into their products even if most don't notice.

The HD switching is looking for about 55dBf to switch from analog to HD. Also, the signal must be in the neighboorhood of +50 S/N to allow switching. Some antennas do contribute noise, especially the amplified ones, which is a no-no. My Terk FM -Pro does not work well on HD. An antenna that contributes little noise is a coxial sleeve. In addition, perfect impedance match is also important because it causes self-inflicted multipath. Don Scott

Does the FM Pro work well if the amplifier is off?

This does bring up the big problem that some people were predicting with HD FM - the effective reception range of the digital broadcast will be quite short.

This is the most promising FM antenna I have seen,
http://www.seengineer.com/

Note that it mounts on the eaves of your home like DBS, which is much more convenient than the Yagi roof mounted antennas. They emphasize precise impedance matching and high S/N ratio.

Yes, it will be nice when HD Radio moves from cars to living rooms.