Manager


Manager - NA4M
Manager Notes

Reviews For: CQ Magazine

Category: Amateur Radio Periodicals

eMail Subscription

Registered users are allowed to subscribe to specific review topics and receive eMail notifications when new reviews are posted.
Review Summary For : CQ Magazine
Reviews: 163MSRP: 42.95/yr
Description:
The Radio Amateur's Journal
Product is in production
More Info: http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/
# last 180 days Avg. Rating last 180 days Total reviews Avg. overall rating
151633.2
KA4AQM Rating: 2008-03-24
Too much ARRL Bashing! Time Owned: more than 12 months.
For years, I subscribed to QST (through ARRL mbrshp) and to CQ to get a wide spectrum of information. What I bagan to notice was the CQ started taking up ARRL-bashing whenever it suited them or for whatever reason. I continued my subscription to CQ for an entire year after that to make sure the writers and staff were not just having a bad year...but it continued. So i CANCELLED my subscription and have not looked back.
N5YPJ Rating: 2007-07-07
Contester's rag Time Owned: more than 12 months.
20 years ago we used to get a construction article or two and some good ham info. Now it seems as though everything between the covers in contest related. There are some of us who do not care about contesting and would like to see other ham related print.
RADIOWEENIE Rating: 2007-04-25
A good magazine, but could be better. Time Owned: more than 12 months.
First off, I like CQ and i like the editors with whom i have talked at Dallas Hamcom thruout the years. Second, the magazine is heavily into contesting whereas i am not. However their inclusion of actual contest data is an EXCELLENT source of statistics as far as the propagation efficacies of the various bands are concerned at any given stage of the sunspot cycle.

I did get mad at them once for no other reason than having President Bill Clinton in their pages extolling Ham radio. I cancelled them for it. It was definitely a foolish and ill thought mistake on my part and i am sorry for it. Compared to what we have today, Bill Clinton was a truly wonderful man and a GREAT president-- and one whom i sincerely miss in retrospect.

My subscription to CQ apparently has just run out, but i will wait until a major Hamfest such as Dallas or Huntsville to renew it in order to take advantage of the lower rates that are typically available at Hamfests.

I only gave a 4 to CQ, but not because i think they are "only good". It is beause they are capable of so much more. I would like to see them carry a few more technical articles that are written so as to make "non-techies" understand them (such as me). A comprehensive series of articles on stealth antennas would be a suggestion i would make to them. The reason for this is all the CC&R problems encountered by Hams and which are caused by the "committee nazis" of the ubiquitous (and universally despised) "Home Owners Associations". People who live in major metro areas (particularly those encountered in the Western States) need, want, and will use this kind of information. Just a suggestion, Mr. Moseson!!

CQ Magazine is better than QST in many ways. QST is more technical and carries more news. But their editorial policy is so narcoleptically boring that it can anaesthetise the reader into a catatonic stupor. The ARRL is becoming a lot like a medieval comté with castle and moat. On the inside of the moat are the ARRL board members and representatives with their intractible and dysfunctional internal politics. On the outside of the moat is the rest of us "peasants in the hustings" who are expected to give them whatever corvée they choose to exact from us in the form of exorbitant dues. This is done in the NAME of "protecting the interests of the hobby"; however it appears to be done for the actual PURPOSE of maintaining a prodigal life style for those fortunate enough (and politically savvy enough) to sidle up to that particular "in-group". The marble bathrooms and first class trips to Switzerland (one of the most expensive countries on Earth) are only a couple of the more notable cases in point and which immediately come to mind.

Seriously, i think the ARRL is more interested in supporting their staff at OUR expense than they are are in representing the "regular radio-amateur" at THEIR expense. A substantial major change is definitely needed. I also believe that a magazine such as CQ can exert more influence than it thinks it can. I would very much like to see CQ's editors take a more active leadership role in this regard. It would greatly behove the interests of those amateurs who do not like and who are not inclined to play the incessant "political games" to which the ARRL now seems to be irretrievably addicted. That ARRL is positively feudalistic!

73,
--RW
K2TPZ Rating: 2007-03-25
Excellent Magazine Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I'm surprised so many Hams look down on this fine magazine. As for me, I absolutely enjoy reading it each month. It has a little different prospective on the Hobby than the other popular magazine that also covers Amateur Radio. I read both publications from cover to cover.

I am very happy we still have both magazines. Keep up the good work CQ.

73s, K2TPZ
KB5LPA Rating: 2007-03-25
Good Reading Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I started getting CQ when I was first licensed (along with 73 Amateur Radio) because one of the hams in the club I attended said I needed to see what was out there. Well I let 73 go after a renewal or two. CQ has been a part of my amateur radio library for the duration. I save antenna articles and put them in a notebook. The reviews are helpful to keep up with new gear. Contests do not interest me but it is neat to read about even those parts of the hobby. All magazines have adds so that is not a bother since the adds pay the bills to keep printing to begin with. CQ meets a need in amateur radio. Glad to renew when time comes.

73
WA2DTW Rating: 2007-03-25
a good alternative to QST Time Owned: more than 12 months.
Useful articles, which you do not need an engineering degree to understand. Useful for keeping up with latest trends.
In this day and age, one needs an alternative to QST. I look forward to receiving both of them.
W7TEA Rating: 2007-03-24
I keep on subscribing Time Owned: more than 12 months.
Been a subscriber since the mid 70's. There were times when it was my favorite mag by far and times when it seemed little more than advertizing and contest information--but I look forward to the new issue each month. Over the years I've especially liked the columns on antennas, keys and QRP.
N0FPE Rating: 2007-03-17
I dumped them... Time Owned: more than 12 months.
dumped it this time around. I have subscribed to CQ and Popular Communications for years. Not any more. just plain crappy. Thinner and thinner every issue. Bye Bye CQ, I will not miss ya.

W8WLC Rating: 2007-03-17
not a bad mag. Time Owned: more than 12 months.
Been a subscriber on and off for the past 39 years. I prefer this mag over one of the major ones that you get as a extra for membership. Most of the construction articles are written for the hams who know and practice radio theory not the dumbed down articles on building a dipole and pages of boring contest results. Yeah it could be a better rag but with the newer cheaper hams and internet rats everybody who uses paper is hurting. For my money I'll ride this one out until the end
WR1H Rating: 2007-03-17
PATHETIC !!! Time Owned: more than 12 months.
YES. I am pathetic too for subcribing to it.

The magazine just plain sucks !!!

Twenty years ago, we had something going on, but now, its just adds and piss poor articles from piss poor writers.

Its on its death bed. I am still debating about re-newing.

Something has to change. For all the money they are making off the adds you think they would hire some staff.