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
VE4AMN Rating: 2010-07-21
Always good to have an option Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I read both QST and CQ and each has its place. CQm being more general does have the occasional project that really interests me. I value the QST product reviews (but take these with a grain of salt - no magazine is going to PO a major advertiser).

The contesting is 'ok' - not my thing, but I do sometimes marvel at the bladder control some of these guys must have.

In all, I will keep reading.
WV1K Rating: 2010-07-21
Slightly better than bird cage liner... use as packing material Time Owned: more than 12 months.
For 24 years I mainly bought CQ at the newsstand a few times a year. When conditions were better and I was more active in pursuing awards, I subscribed. I since dropped it. One reason was their cheering of the No Code HF license. I frankly spent the last 4 healthy summers I had left practicing Morse (among other activities but too much time was spent in a chair). It's clear that was now wasted time. Where was CQ and ARRL before they drove the hobby into the ground with their "we had to do it, so will you" license structure ? The only time their excessive demands falling flat appears to have mattered is when their wallets were in danger (maybe). As with QST which of course is supposed to be the voice of an organization, I flipped through CQ and found an article or two and that was it. Their product reviews were always more poor than any I ever read. Computer websites like Tom's, or others you'll find, give detailed, highly technical reviews of power supplies, video cards, etc. In these reviews they manage to get out the scope, put items under load, etc... in many cases these are VOLUNTEER authors doing more than a CQ or QST review has in it. CQ never rose to the occasion in that department at all. Strange since I'm not paying for Tom's and the others to do that with computer parts now. As for the cost of CQ, subscriptions are reasonable and economists will counter that retired people come in two flavors. They either really do live off SSA checks or else they have so much disposable income besides their SSA check that their constant comments about what is expensive are worthy of asking whether they think they're taking it with them...
AA8X Rating: 2010-07-21
Too much money Time Owned: more than 12 months.
Too many articles on contesting and the subscription price are much too high especially for seniors.
EI4GMB Rating: 2010-07-20
Abreast of the times Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I have been a subscriber to CQ Magazine for almost 2 years and recently got a great annual subscription deal for $52 including airmail to Europe. I think this is fantastic value.CQ's articles are well written,clearly understandable and easy to read.In my view a no-nonsense approach. They also carry out regular reader surveys to gage what we would like to see in the magazine. So CQ is constantly evolving to the needs of their readership and to the Ham community in general. This is an open approach and shows that they listen. The magazine contains a wide variety of articles so there is always something for someone though I would agree that it's very DX and Contest orientated (and also does US Emergency Communications and Mobile operating very well). But then again I am an active operator so these things appeal to me. CQ is not just a US Magazine but an international one too with a large international readership so I would like to see some more articles for us foreigners Hi Hi.
In short I am happy with my subscription and having read some poor reviews of old reliables like QST I think that I have made the right choice.
N8FXH Rating: 2010-07-19
Magazine OK Time Owned: more than 12 months.
The only bad thing about CQ is it's price, otherwise it is a pleasant read.
K5ADF Rating: 2010-07-19
CQ is OK Time Owned: more than 12 months.
It is a bit expensive compared to some of the other hobby magazines that I subscribe. I have been a subscriber for 8 years. I find interesting articles in each issue that are written on a lighter level than QST which often require a higher level of knowledge of electrical theory. I am a retired electrical engineer that enjoys heavier articles of course but like the lighter ones for more casual reading. The magazine has always been delivered without any problems. This is the only ham magazine I pay for since I became a life member of ARRL 32 years ago.
W4PC Rating: 2010-07-19
Wow, stuck in the 50's, I dont think so Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I've worked with Dick and Rich for a number of years in being both an advertiser and a writer, and can say nothing about them but good things and they are good people.

The focus of CQ is geared more toward contesting and DX, and not a one size fits all like QST. Nothing wrong with that, and they have about the same subscribership.

And some of you might not remember, but Wayne had his own magazine, 73, for a number of years and it folded due to lack of revenue.

Today's CQ is for the modern DXer/Contester, etc. It may not be for you, but to want something to go back to the 'good old days' in nonsense.

Today is 2010, not 1955.

CQ is a magazine for today's ham.
WG7X Rating: 2010-07-19
You guys... Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I have been a subscriber to CQ for many years. How many exactly I can't recall, but probably at least twenty some years. CQ has always had a different editorial slant then "QST" and that's great!

If the two biggest Amateur publications were exactly the same, how boring would that be?

CQ is for the operator who enjoys the actual "operating" part of ham radio. DX, Contests, county hunting, mobile operation, key collecting, etcetera.

All good stuff, and I for one will continue to subscribe and read for the foreseeable future.

Is it "QST"? No, and thank goodness for that! Each publication has it's place.


Just my opinion of course!

73 Gary
K8YZK Rating: 2010-07-19
Same as the other Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I have a subscription because one of my granddaughters for girl scout was selling subscription and CQ was in it. It is a ok mag. To me it is about the same as QST. They both push their agenda, ARRL with emergency, winlid bs, CQ with county hunters and awards bs.
Actually I would love to see a Wayne Green style of the late 60's early 70's mag come back, but it will never happen. Building and expermenting is not like it use to be.
After the subscription runs out, I will look at it at the local Barnes and Noble and buy it if it has something I want.
KB0XR Rating: 2010-07-19
Dropped it years ago Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I was a devoted reader/subscriber for years. But, dropped it due to lack of content. It used to be a refreshing change from QST but no more. I used to enjoy Wayne's rants even though I didn't agree with him a lot of the time.