| N6RK |
Rating:  |
2010-07-20 | |
| Low quality technical articles |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
AE1S writes:
"Most of the articles are pure waste of paper and ink - either ARRL propaganda BS, empty articles with no useful information or some ridiculous projects (like making a voltage regulator out of integrated voltage regulator and 2 capacitors..."
My sentiments exactly. Nearly every issue has an article that makes me wonder "what were they thinking?". I have tried to talk to ARRL staff about the low quality of the magazine, and they change the subject to the old debate about whether it is "too technical" or "not technical enough". The articles are just poor, whatever technical level they are. They did recently publish some very good work by N6LF but lost some of the message due to their editing. Unfortunately, they won't listen to constructive criticism.
|
|
| KB1NXL |
Rating: |
2010-07-20 | |
| Dumbed Down |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
| QST editors, as far as construction articles are concerned, are woefully inadequate in content and need to subscribe to ANY European electronics magazine to see how it should be done. Any QST contruction article is simply a brief summary (some really brief) of the circuit with a schematic. That's it. If one goes to any large bookstore that sells magazines and thumbs thru ANY UK electronics publication, you'll find, in clear, well written, and descriptive language what each part of the circuit does, a schematic diagram, a CONSTRUCTIONAL wiring diagram of the circuit showing how to actually build the circuit, a clear picture of the PC board, or perf board complete with wiring, a set of clear pictures showing each section as wired, and a reference for how and where to get a complete kit of parts. If ARRL truly wants to encourage more young folks to enter the hobby and 'homebrew' practical circuits that the average non-teckkie can build, then they need to supply, in the precious two to three pages allotted to any article, much more than a schematic diagram and parts list. |
|
| AE1S |
Rating: |
2010-07-20 | |
| just schlock |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
| After many years as ARRL member, I think this year would be my last as QST subscriber (ARRL member). The magazine has been getting progressively bad year by year. Most of the articles are pure waste of paper and ink - either ARRL propaganda BS, empty articles with no useful information or some ridiculous projects (like making a voltage regulator out of integrated voltage regulator and 2 capacitors - huh?!?). Some more interesting projects are incomplete, sending you to the web for schematics and information. Even the equipment reviews lately are more of product endorsements than real and objective reviews. The new format of the equipment reviews is just wasting valuable space with the idiotic color bar scales. In each magazine there are total of 2-3 pages worth reading. I have to admit - every now and then an interesting and informative article will pop-up but I don’t think the subscription fee is worth the few such articles per year. I would rate QST up until the late 90s - 5 and today's QST is just schlock but I guess they are trying to cater to hams who are bitching that QST has become "too technical" ... Hello?!? HAM RADIO is a TECHNICAL hobby! |
|
| N6BOB |
Rating: |
2010-03-08 | |
| Great Modern Ham Magazine and ARRL organization |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
| Have been reading and a member of the ARRL since the 1960's and it has kept my interest up in ham radio. We are so lucky to have the great ARRL organization. Without them there would be no ham radio today in the USA. They run the VE program and print excellent books to help us in all aspects of ham radio. Yes, there are other Ham magazines but none at colorful and up to date. |
|
| W7DDD |
Rating: |
2010-03-08 | |
| I Like QST |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I really like QST. And - let me say right off the bat - I'm in love with Steve Ford. I like his interests, his writing style, his circumstances and common sense. He's a damn good man!
I'm always amazed how I look forward to the next issue - and then, as I thumb through it - find only one or two articles that interest me. And then I keep plowing that field, and find another one and another -- and before I know it, I've read it from cover to cover. Then, a few months, or years later, I go back and find an article I somehow missed or forgot about - that has exactly what I want.
I love the Doctor and Vintage stories.
And, I love the "adverts." Hell, if you don't like 'em, skip 'em. They pay for the magazine. Many times, I read the mag starting from back to front. Many of the ads are the samo-samo, but, -- stuck in there, are new ones, new equipment, new vendors. I even love reading really old QSTs, and the best part is the advertisements. I luv 'em. |
|
| NJ1X |
Rating: |
2009-12-16 | |
| A fine magazine |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
| I enjoy all of the articles in QST. If I didn't like an article or the magazine itself, I would say so but I won't use the "S" word. That word meant something else when I was younger and I don't care to see it in print, especially in eHam.net reviews. |
|
| K4AEN |
Rating: |
2009-11-27 | |
| Life Member - Lifetime Subscriber |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I've been licensed since 1963 as a kid, became a life member in 1975. I still look forward to each issue. No, it doesn't cover everything, nor could it, but it's balanced among interests. My interest runs to QRP and CW, but I find the variety of articles on activities, modes and technical stuff intriguing, even if it's not my particular interest.
It's good to be part of a national organization and support the hobby. |
|
| K1YPB |
Rating: |
2009-11-26 | |
| Good for what it is... |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
| Ham Radio is more diversified than ever. The interests of the hobby are wide. The interests of individual amateurs span a greater than ever broad range of technology and operating practices. Many favorite aspects that individual amateurs will justifiably defend vehemently as the best aspect of the hobby. And why not... it is that aspect of the hobby that has drawn us in for what ever reason. QST I believe tries to cross these boundaries. Is it perfect? Probably not. Could it be better? Probably yes. But all in all, I think it does an adequate job considering. I have been a ham since 1962, I still look forward to my monthly edition in the mail, and enjoy reading it, and supporting the ARRL. |
|
| N0FPE |
Rating: |
2009-11-26 | |
| OK |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
Its ok. I do think a lot of hams today couldnt build 90% of the projects in QST, but thats not the mags fault. Maybe if hams today would LEARN something instead of just memorizing the test answers they would see QST in a different light. Maybe not. I am good with the ARRL and QST. makes good reading in the toilet or while killing time at work.
Flame away if you must. I have fireproof underware.
----------------------
Earlier 5-star review posted by N0FPE on 2008-10-09
I dont find the construction projects that hard to follow. I am NO electronics engineer. But I at least have a good understanding of the working of my hobby. They have dumbed down a lot of the projects so the memorize the answer crowd can at least try them. They are pretty hard if you have no idea how to read a resistor or how to build a bridge rectifier. And I also saw the Dbd/Dbi question. very sad indeed.
----------------------
Earlier 5-star review posted by N0FPE on 2007-01-12
Good in my book. Nothing else like it.
----------------------
Earlier 5-star review posted by N0FPE on 2004-12-08
I have to give QST a 5. I know it ha some shortcomings, but the other things in the mag make up for the bad parts. I am a bit miffed abt the dropping of section news. Overall QST makes the grade.
|
|
| KE6YX |
Rating: |
2009-11-26 | |
| It just sucks! |
Time Owned: 6 to 12 months. |
QST really sucks!
After stripping away the advertisements, contest reports which are pages of numbers, emergency preparedness, and the endless pages telling us what a great job the ARRL is doing, there is very little left. Even the tech articles are dumbed down to the lowest level.
As for the equipment reviews, They are sucking up to the advertisers. I keep waiting for a review that actually will tell the truth about a product. If you believed everything the reviews say, every piece of ham gear tested is just fantastic, and we should run right out and buy it. Come on guys, everyone knows that there are some dogs being manufactured.
There was a time when I could learn something useful in QST, but that was a long time ago.
|
|
