My speakers are WO24P, Em1308 dome mid and ET448 tweeters, currently crossed over around 750hz and 4khz, this keeps all drivers in their low distortion zones and the crossovers out of the hearing sensitivity frequencies.
This is not the only solution but works for me but it depends on how high the woofer can go before break up and how low the mid can go before distortion rises. The WO24P has been used successfully at 600Hz by Troels (SBA941 three way) and 1200hz by Jeff Bagby (Helios with waveguide Be tweeter) so seems to be very flexible.
This is not the only solution but works for me but it depends on how high the woofer can go before break up and how low the mid can go before distortion rises. The WO24P has been used successfully at 600Hz by Troels (SBA941 three way) and 1200hz by Jeff Bagby (Helios with waveguide Be tweeter) so seems to be very flexible.
I wonder how much of that is the mic input overloading from near-field recording. SCM-2 was rated 123 dB SPL peak (<1% THD) and its max 134dB. But the measured peak is closer to 1400 Hz, with recorded SPL around 130 dB.
On the low end, one of the main things to look at is volume displacement, since it limits the SPL that can be achieved for a given frequency.
spl_max1.xls by Linkwitz is a nice little spreadsheet to investigate that aspect
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/models.htm#A1
Many midrange domes are very limited in this regard. The following excerpt is from Looking Over My Shoulder by Lynn Olson:
"The first problem is that soft-dome midranges have a limited bandwidth resulting from restricted linear excursion (1-2 mm typical) and do not gracefully tolerate even a 500 Hz crossover, operating best over a limited 800 Hz to 3200 Hz range.
A second problem is that they are quite prone to side-to-side rocking modes, since there is no spider combined with the surround to force the movement into a linear back-and-forth motion.
A third problem is that the doped silk dome is just, well, too soft for the job it has to do in the power band of the midrange."
spl_max1.xls by Linkwitz is a nice little spreadsheet to investigate that aspect
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/models.htm#A1
Many midrange domes are very limited in this regard. The following excerpt is from Looking Over My Shoulder by Lynn Olson:
"The first problem is that soft-dome midranges have a limited bandwidth resulting from restricted linear excursion (1-2 mm typical) and do not gracefully tolerate even a 500 Hz crossover, operating best over a limited 800 Hz to 3200 Hz range.
A second problem is that they are quite prone to side-to-side rocking modes, since there is no spider combined with the surround to force the movement into a linear back-and-forth motion.
A third problem is that the doped silk dome is just, well, too soft for the job it has to do in the power band of the midrange."
If you use the D52, I'd pick the D21 for the top end crossed at 5k LR2. I wouldn't run the D52 down lower than 700 hz 2nd order. If you want to use it 1st order, no lower than 800 with an LCR to notch the Fs. Dynaudio runs the D52 to about 700 1st order in their smaller 3 ways, which doesn't sound that good, especially without the LCR notch. Problem is the mid already starts to roll off at 700. If you push it lower, IMD starts to show it ugly head. Its a nice mid used correctly. If you want the most natural sound from it. I'd use a decent paper cone 5-6 inch midwoofer crossed at 900-1000 1st order. You'll need an LCR notch on the D52 if you want to play it loud. My favorite midbass for the job would be the Peerless NE180W. You could also use the SB Rosso 6MW150D.
Hi i see But in this way the woofer is reproducing both drums, piano, pipe organs lowest frequencies and a good part of the human voice
For me a great reproduction of human voices together with a very nice 3D soundstage are the most important things indeed
If i look at two big names in the pro monitor industry ATC and Neumann use a dome. Genelec and Dynaudio instead use cones in their TOTL products
Maybe they are both right ?
Last edited:
Hi thank you for the precious advice Really impressive driver the Faital A little pricey but high quality comes at a price usually
Very very nice with a fs=65Hz it could be great from about 120 up to 3kHz ? then any woofer below and tweeter above would be perfect
Great driver indeed I am sure it would not be out of place in any high quality speaker
Hi thanks a lot for the valuable advice Actually i have a working pair of them in a pair old Dynaudio Recital speakers that i could cannibalize@profiguy - the dome king- has used the D52 mid dome, and can probably advise on crossover points to get the most out of it
Unfortunately they have a really weak 24W75 woofer (Qts=1 !) The bass is ridiculous ... but mid and highs (d52 and d21) are instead quite good
But to be frank i am leaning towards a cone midrange
I do not know where to cut from 120 to 4-500 Still thinking about it
Hi very very interesting I remember that paper from Mr Olson I think it was about the Ariel speakers project ? yes he chose cone midrange in a 2 way
Another point for cones then I have to study more cones Their size ranges from even 7" to 3" A lot of choice Thank you very much
There's no black and white answer. Some folks like cones, some domes. Not all cones or domes have the same bandwidth capabilities, so it all depends on personal preferences (prejudices) and partnering drivers.
Something you seem to want is to avoid crossover in the male voice region. In terms of domes, only ATC and Volt domes can even do this. Maybe new Yamaha Zylon dome. D52 cannot. And you can't even buy ATC domes anymore, nor Yamaha; only the Volt. I haven't heard a cone in a box speaker that matches ATC dome for midrange, but this is just cause of my ears. Wilson midrange? Bleh.
No free lunch with cones, either. There you have to think carefully about bass driver and XO to partner the mid, and phase issues with tweeter if using a flat baffle if not using a waveguide or DSP, which has its own pros and cons (usually, shitty amps to make them work - there, I said it).
As you have D52s and ITTs, why not prototype and build around them.
Something you seem to want is to avoid crossover in the male voice region. In terms of domes, only ATC and Volt domes can even do this. Maybe new Yamaha Zylon dome. D52 cannot. And you can't even buy ATC domes anymore, nor Yamaha; only the Volt. I haven't heard a cone in a box speaker that matches ATC dome for midrange, but this is just cause of my ears. Wilson midrange? Bleh.
No free lunch with cones, either. There you have to think carefully about bass driver and XO to partner the mid, and phase issues with tweeter if using a flat baffle if not using a waveguide or DSP, which has its own pros and cons (usually, shitty amps to make them work - there, I said it).
As you have D52s and ITTs, why not prototype and build around them.
Last edited:
Hi thank you very much As i said above i have an old but working pair of Dynaudio Recital The drivers complement is 24W75 (i really do not know why they used this poor woofer ... maybe with another woofer the speakers would have been too good for the price ?) then the d52 and the d21
I could have been done with that Recitals .... the higher part of the spectrum is very detailed but also smooth Very very nice
The woofers instead caused me a nervous breakdown
Then with the time i discovered that they have a poor magnet and high moving mass .... a recipe for disaster
I tried many amps without any effect ... the bass is slow to start and slow to stop One of the worst woofer of which i have experience
Instead the more expensive 24W100 must be phenomenal ... ignorance is a really bad thing
https://www.dynaudioacoustics.cn/down/DYNAUDIO_24W100.pdf
that is really good With a much beefier magnet Great driver indeed ... but i do not have it
Hi thanks a lot for the kind and very appreciated advice I am leaning towards cones in the end I understand that in general a low moving mass and a very powerful magnet, like in the ATC domes, is a very good thing to have It is a little like the power to weight ratio in racing cars i guess
And it is expressed by the Qts I guess the Qts of the ATC must be very very low ?
So imho once fixed the xover point with the woofer it would be just to find a very low Qts midcone
I have experience with a high Qts woofer ... like around 1 of Qts I do not want to sound exaggerated but it just ruined my life Seriously
I do not know how many amps i tried ... the bass was ridiculous ... always sluggish (strangely they say distortion is quite low)
Then a listen to a JBL L166 Horizon with a very low Qts woofer .... OMG
For me the perfect bass in a medium size room I could not think of more really
If you are interested in designing a reasonable high fidelity speaker then you are going about it poorly. The speaker spec (how big, how loud, budget,...) and configuration comes first and then you find drivers with the parameters to fit the spec and configuration. What is the spec and speaker configuration? You have talked about satellites, subwoofers, woofers,... but not in a way that makes enough sense to consider suitable drivers.
Being guided by keeping down cost and following physics a high fidelity 3 way main speaker that can reproduce clean SPLs in a normal room at standard levels has a 10-12" woofer (or 2 x 6.5-8" woofers), a 4-5" midrange and a 1" tweeter (setting aside discussion of suitable subwoofers). You can see many examples of such a configuration from top of the range home speakers and studio midfield monitors. This is the most straightforward and cost effective route to high fidelity mains speakers but people and manufacturers obviously have their own constraints, requirements and wishes that moves away from this reference/datum.
If you opt for a small 3" midrange it will generally struggle at the low frequency end but do well at the high frequency end. Big expensive beefy ones might crossover at 400-600 Hz whereas less beefy ones perhaps 800 Hz. This tends to require the woofer to cover too much bandwidth to work well but if you use subwoofers and use the small size to better control directivity with a waveguide it can be a good if costly approach. A 4-5" cone midrange is likely to be cheaper and more straightforward option for most particularly if the tweeter uses a waveguide.
Being guided by keeping down cost and following physics a high fidelity 3 way main speaker that can reproduce clean SPLs in a normal room at standard levels has a 10-12" woofer (or 2 x 6.5-8" woofers), a 4-5" midrange and a 1" tweeter (setting aside discussion of suitable subwoofers). You can see many examples of such a configuration from top of the range home speakers and studio midfield monitors. This is the most straightforward and cost effective route to high fidelity mains speakers but people and manufacturers obviously have their own constraints, requirements and wishes that moves away from this reference/datum.
If you opt for a small 3" midrange it will generally struggle at the low frequency end but do well at the high frequency end. Big expensive beefy ones might crossover at 400-600 Hz whereas less beefy ones perhaps 800 Hz. This tends to require the woofer to cover too much bandwidth to work well but if you use subwoofers and use the small size to better control directivity with a waveguide it can be a good if costly approach. A 4-5" cone midrange is likely to be cheaper and more straightforward option for most particularly if the tweeter uses a waveguide.
It depends on the radiation pattern of the used drivers, their distortion profile, their dynamic capabilities and your skills in crossover design. All in all there is no straight answer.
Personally I like the range from 25-30Hz up to 150-200Hz to be played by the largest cone area I can get away with, a 15 or 18 inch driver sounds way more realistic than a 6.5 or 8 inch driver in that area. Since I simply can’t listen to anything smaller anymore this dictates the first crossover point for me. As you can see from my personal example it’s all about your design goals and what compromises you are willing to make. Choices, choices, the hardest part in any design
Choices, yes...the hardest to accept myself is the trade-off thingy as well. it is painfull to sort out the priorities.
As said it is classic to try not to go beyond 500 hz for the bass and not below 2000 hz for the treble because of the pistonic range of the drivers ruled by their diameter. That does not say you can not break the rules if you know what you do.
A second basic rule could be, if a 3 ways, makes the midrange to playback the largest band possible, 2.5 octave and more. Same with the rules, they can be breaked by design choice if you rule them.
Then you finish often for homes with 8" to 18" bass surfaces + 4" to 6" mid + 3/4" to 1,3" tweeter.
Same things as aboves, said sligthy differently.
Experienced people know how to break the rules (notice I am not one of them so when I look for a driver I try to stay in the above short list).
For illustration of drivers choice according the size you maybe look at Troels Gravsen 3 ways classic designs from different size.
Also google Tarkus design for a classic yet good and affordable design for illustration among thousand elses, i do not see any problem to use your tweeter in it... notice the size of the drivers and XO.
As said it is classic to try not to go beyond 500 hz for the bass and not below 2000 hz for the treble because of the pistonic range of the drivers ruled by their diameter. That does not say you can not break the rules if you know what you do.
A second basic rule could be, if a 3 ways, makes the midrange to playback the largest band possible, 2.5 octave and more. Same with the rules, they can be breaked by design choice if you rule them.
Then you finish often for homes with 8" to 18" bass surfaces + 4" to 6" mid + 3/4" to 1,3" tweeter.
Same things as aboves, said sligthy differently.
Experienced people know how to break the rules (notice I am not one of them so when I look for a driver I try to stay in the above short list).
For illustration of drivers choice according the size you maybe look at Troels Gravsen 3 ways classic designs from different size.
Also google Tarkus design for a classic yet good and affordable design for illustration among thousand elses, i do not see any problem to use your tweeter in it... notice the size of the drivers and XO.
Last edited:
This is a very interesting thread, but I have the strong feeling the thread starter has never constructed any x-over or speaker before. For starting a new live as a loudspeaker designer, a 3-way may be a little to ambitious. Is there anyone to disagree?
Ginetto, I'm not sure you understood that without a perfect x-over even the best chassis in the world will sound like crap?
The problem is not to find the perfect chassis, the problem is to make them work together, electically and acoustically.
Do you know an x-over is not simply calculated? Have you realized a passive 3-way x-over will easily need parts worth a few hundred US$? Some times more than the rest of the loudspeaker chassis?
People that design speakers and x-overs usually have drawers full of parts to try, which cost a small fortune. Second they have measuring tools. Last, they have learned this art over years by studying or hard work of try and error. Often both. Speaker designer is a very special, rare talent, in company with enormous knowledge of theories.
Having a friend who can make boxes from wood is nice, but not the base for a loudspeaker development.
One of the worst ways to start are some old chassis with unknown data, picked from old speakers, OEM chassis may look similar to openly available units, but just one or two letters or numbers, at the end of it's name, may make it a very different part. Even if you find data, the speaker may be worn out, ferro fluid gone solid etc. and not to spec.
So, question you self: Can I measure? Can I construct an x-over? Do I have the funds to buy expensive parts of which most are not used in the end?
If there is a "no" in your answers, abandon the idea and get a well made kit and let your wood friend build the cabinet exactly as described in the plan. Exactly! There are various well made kits at any price point.
I know what you think: " I have dug out some (once, two to three decades ago!) high end name parts and can build something fantastic around them by using other parts from the trash bin for free"
I can promise that you will not save money, using the chassis you have, but loose a lot. You can re-use some coils and resistors, maybe some film capacitors too.
What you do not want to realize: Constructing a 3-way is many times more complicated than a 2-way.
If you want to go this way of DIYS as a bloody beginner, the combination of a well made 2-way speaker kit and a sub woofer build into the extended cabinet, active crossed low (100-200 Hz, depending on x-over) would be the best idea. This may be worth the effort and money.
A sub woofer can be calculated and simulated with a 95% chance of working well, a single x-over controlled with some luck.
If you ask for the best advice: Do not build anything now. Get a measuring microphone and learn how to use a software with it. Play with your speaker components to get a first idea. A laptop and REW or ARTA are a good start, even without a special measuring mike.
You can start right now, even without spending a single Cent. Just down load the software.
Even if you finally realize, a build is out of your reach, measuring will improve the setup in your room in any case. With your ears you may realize something sounds bad, by measuring you can find out what sounds ugly and correct it. So in any case, no time wasted.
Good luck!
Ginetto, I'm not sure you understood that without a perfect x-over even the best chassis in the world will sound like crap?
The problem is not to find the perfect chassis, the problem is to make them work together, electically and acoustically.
Do you know an x-over is not simply calculated? Have you realized a passive 3-way x-over will easily need parts worth a few hundred US$? Some times more than the rest of the loudspeaker chassis?
People that design speakers and x-overs usually have drawers full of parts to try, which cost a small fortune. Second they have measuring tools. Last, they have learned this art over years by studying or hard work of try and error. Often both. Speaker designer is a very special, rare talent, in company with enormous knowledge of theories.
Having a friend who can make boxes from wood is nice, but not the base for a loudspeaker development.
One of the worst ways to start are some old chassis with unknown data, picked from old speakers, OEM chassis may look similar to openly available units, but just one or two letters or numbers, at the end of it's name, may make it a very different part. Even if you find data, the speaker may be worn out, ferro fluid gone solid etc. and not to spec.
So, question you self: Can I measure? Can I construct an x-over? Do I have the funds to buy expensive parts of which most are not used in the end?
If there is a "no" in your answers, abandon the idea and get a well made kit and let your wood friend build the cabinet exactly as described in the plan. Exactly! There are various well made kits at any price point.
I know what you think: " I have dug out some (once, two to three decades ago!) high end name parts and can build something fantastic around them by using other parts from the trash bin for free"
I can promise that you will not save money, using the chassis you have, but loose a lot. You can re-use some coils and resistors, maybe some film capacitors too.
What you do not want to realize: Constructing a 3-way is many times more complicated than a 2-way.
If you want to go this way of DIYS as a bloody beginner, the combination of a well made 2-way speaker kit and a sub woofer build into the extended cabinet, active crossed low (100-200 Hz, depending on x-over) would be the best idea. This may be worth the effort and money.
A sub woofer can be calculated and simulated with a 95% chance of working well, a single x-over controlled with some luck.
If you ask for the best advice: Do not build anything now. Get a measuring microphone and learn how to use a software with it. Play with your speaker components to get a first idea. A laptop and REW or ARTA are a good start, even without a special measuring mike.
You can start right now, even without spending a single Cent. Just down load the software.
Even if you finally realize, a build is out of your reach, measuring will improve the setup in your room in any case. With your ears you may realize something sounds bad, by measuring you can find out what sounds ugly and correct it. So in any case, no time wasted.
Good luck!
This is just my take on it - some ideas may be different from how “traditional 3 ways”are designed but that’s why DIY is so fun. We can try different things.
I look at the response curves and choose the low pass of the driver to coincide with its natural falloff if possible. This lets you push the XO point up higher and allows a simpler electrical filter to achieve a steeper and higher order electro-acoustic falloff, e.g., 4th order for the price of a 2nd order electrical. As mentioned before, by pushing the low pass higher, the low end of the next driver up (mid in case of woofer, and tweeter in the case of the mid) is relieved of distortion by not having to push so much air.
Pick drivers with flat smooth responses and little to no breakup if possible. Set the midrange for as wide a bandwidth as possible so that it contains the majority of the content similar to a fullrange driver so that spatial and imaging cues contained in the music are coherent (aka, the magic of the fullrange driver speaker - circa the decade from 500Hz to 5kHz, sometimes called the “telephone band”). This can for example end up with a speaker that has 400Hz and 4kHz or 500Hz and 5kHz or even 600Hz and 6kHz crossovers.
Avoid crossovers at the traditional 1.5kHz to 2.5kHz range as that is one of the most audible regions to the ear so mistakes or imperfect transitions are more noticeable, plus you lose the phase coherence of the fullrange driver in this critical part where stereo imaging and soundstage are important.
Also, consider use of fullrange drivers as wideband mids (like SS 10F/8424) and consider other types of tweeters in addition to domes. Planars, ribbons, AMTs, even horn loaded compression drivers. There are so many that may do what you need and sound wonderful. I have tried them all and one of my favorites is the AMT. These (and planars) also have a flat impedance curve making them easy to electrically integrate.
My last 3 way used a pro-audio midrange with very wide bandwidth (PRV 5MR450NDY-8) and a planar in a waveguide. The woofer was an 8 driver bass array in a slot loaded open baffle. Crossover points were about 470Hz and 5000Hz. Black curve is predicted and yellow curve is actual measured.
Measured distortion at 2vrms and 0.5m:
Predicted impedance:
I did this with 4 inductors, 5 caps, and 4 resistors:
Speaker looks like this:
I think it sounds pretty great. The bass chest punch is fantastic because the woofers are allowed to cover the 120Hz to 300Hz region. The imaging sounds like a fullrange speaker because a full decade is used by the mid. The highs sparkle and full of air and light without fatigue with the planar. And because it is a dipole, the ambience is very natural. Have a listen here.
I look at the response curves and choose the low pass of the driver to coincide with its natural falloff if possible. This lets you push the XO point up higher and allows a simpler electrical filter to achieve a steeper and higher order electro-acoustic falloff, e.g., 4th order for the price of a 2nd order electrical. As mentioned before, by pushing the low pass higher, the low end of the next driver up (mid in case of woofer, and tweeter in the case of the mid) is relieved of distortion by not having to push so much air.
Pick drivers with flat smooth responses and little to no breakup if possible. Set the midrange for as wide a bandwidth as possible so that it contains the majority of the content similar to a fullrange driver so that spatial and imaging cues contained in the music are coherent (aka, the magic of the fullrange driver speaker - circa the decade from 500Hz to 5kHz, sometimes called the “telephone band”). This can for example end up with a speaker that has 400Hz and 4kHz or 500Hz and 5kHz or even 600Hz and 6kHz crossovers.
Avoid crossovers at the traditional 1.5kHz to 2.5kHz range as that is one of the most audible regions to the ear so mistakes or imperfect transitions are more noticeable, plus you lose the phase coherence of the fullrange driver in this critical part where stereo imaging and soundstage are important.
Also, consider use of fullrange drivers as wideband mids (like SS 10F/8424) and consider other types of tweeters in addition to domes. Planars, ribbons, AMTs, even horn loaded compression drivers. There are so many that may do what you need and sound wonderful. I have tried them all and one of my favorites is the AMT. These (and planars) also have a flat impedance curve making them easy to electrically integrate.
My last 3 way used a pro-audio midrange with very wide bandwidth (PRV 5MR450NDY-8) and a planar in a waveguide. The woofer was an 8 driver bass array in a slot loaded open baffle. Crossover points were about 470Hz and 5000Hz. Black curve is predicted and yellow curve is actual measured.
Measured distortion at 2vrms and 0.5m:
Predicted impedance:
I did this with 4 inductors, 5 caps, and 4 resistors:
Speaker looks like this:
I think it sounds pretty great. The bass chest punch is fantastic because the woofers are allowed to cover the 120Hz to 300Hz region. The imaging sounds like a fullrange speaker because a full decade is used by the mid. The highs sparkle and full of air and light without fatigue with the planar. And because it is a dipole, the ambience is very natural. Have a listen here.
Last edited:
If you're building a standard 3-way tower, with that 5" midrange of yours, a common crossover frequency is 350-400Hz.
With the tweeter at ear height (about 1m) and the mid just below the tweeter, the midrange is then being operated above its floor bounce frequency, and the woofers, by being lower and nearer to the floor are operating below their floor bounce frequency, so it is essentially eliminated.
With the right baffle width, you can also have the baffle step form part of the desired acoustic crossover slope.
This assumes your woofers are capable of extending into the midrange to the crossover point (and preferably an octave or so above).
Also if you crossover actively between W and M, you can use EQ on the woofer to adjust for room response below the Schroeder frequency without touching M and T.
With the tweeter at ear height (about 1m) and the mid just below the tweeter, the midrange is then being operated above its floor bounce frequency, and the woofers, by being lower and nearer to the floor are operating below their floor bounce frequency, so it is essentially eliminated.
With the right baffle width, you can also have the baffle step form part of the desired acoustic crossover slope.
This assumes your woofers are capable of extending into the midrange to the crossover point (and preferably an octave or so above).
Also if you crossover actively between W and M, you can use EQ on the woofer to adjust for room response below the Schroeder frequency without touching M and T.
Regarding dome midranges: I like them for some applications. But there are some caveats to consider.
Making a large dome driver (the right way) is probably rather expensive (Volt, ATC, the new Bliesma). It seems like the only measurable advantage they have over a small cone driver is sensitivity, and perhaps power handling. At the upper end of cost and performance, where sensitivity and power output are so important, they may have a place. Subjectively there may be differences.
I think the main attraction of a 3" dome mid compared to a 4" cone is that the cone driver will typically have a sensitivity of 85 - 89 db/2.83V, whereas the dome will have a sensitivity of 92 - 96 dB/2.83V.
As for the advantages of a small cone midrange (Sd of 40 - 80 cm^2), it is so much easier to deal with an Fs of 70 - 90 Hz rather than 350-450 Hz as is typical of dome mids. Bandwidth is another advantage, with some cone drivers spanning a range of 20x (4.3 octaves). A dome mid rarely goes beyond a bandwidth span of 8x (3 octaves). And finally, cost is another advantage. If you have $200+ to spend on a midrange driver, there are both cone and dome options. If you have $80 to spend, your best options will all be cone drivers.
j.
Making a large dome driver (the right way) is probably rather expensive (Volt, ATC, the new Bliesma). It seems like the only measurable advantage they have over a small cone driver is sensitivity, and perhaps power handling. At the upper end of cost and performance, where sensitivity and power output are so important, they may have a place. Subjectively there may be differences.
I think the main attraction of a 3" dome mid compared to a 4" cone is that the cone driver will typically have a sensitivity of 85 - 89 db/2.83V, whereas the dome will have a sensitivity of 92 - 96 dB/2.83V.
As for the advantages of a small cone midrange (Sd of 40 - 80 cm^2), it is so much easier to deal with an Fs of 70 - 90 Hz rather than 350-450 Hz as is typical of dome mids. Bandwidth is another advantage, with some cone drivers spanning a range of 20x (4.3 octaves). A dome mid rarely goes beyond a bandwidth span of 8x (3 octaves). And finally, cost is another advantage. If you have $200+ to spend on a midrange driver, there are both cone and dome options. If you have $80 to spend, your best options will all be cone drivers.
j.
