RBH Sound Impression 85-1 Floor-Standing Loudspeaker Review

[shadyJ]

​

For a good few years now, RBH Sound hasn’t had any offerings in the entry-level segment of the loudspeaker market, likely due to their shift from China to the USA in manufacturing. The fact is that China can manufacture most consumer electronics goods far more inexpensively than can be done in the US, and this makes it difficult to find a profit in larger volume and lower margin speakers. However, the supply chain problems during the COVID-19 years taught American consumer electronics companies that dependence on Chinese manufacturing can be a double-edged sword. In order to have a more reliable supply chain, RBH went through the painful move to US manufacturing, and now that the shift to domestic cabinet manufacturing is complete, they are set to offer loudspeakers over a wider range of prices. For this reason, RBH Sound has now brought back their entry-level Impression series loudspeakers which are surely the lowest-cost loudspeakers made in the USA in their class. In for review today is the Impression 85-i, their 3-way tower speaker from this series featuring a side firing 8" woofer with subwoofer like bass, a 5 1/4" midrange and 1" fabric dome tweeter for a modest asking price of $1,195/pair. In evaluating these speakers, we will ask how they fare against other floor-standing speakers in their class? How do they perform, and can American manufacturing still compete with Chinese manufacturing for the cost? Read our full review to find out…

READ: RBH Sound Impression 85-i Tower Speaker Review

 

[TLS Guy]

View attachment 69580​

For a good few years now, RBH Sound hasn’t had any offerings in the entry-level segment of the loudspeaker market, likely due to their shift from China to the USA in manufacturing. The fact is that China can manufacture most consumer electronics goods far more inexpensively than can be done in the US, and this makes it difficult to find a profit in larger volume and lower margin speakers. However, the supply chain problems during the COVID-19 years taught American consumer electronics companies that dependence on Chinese manufacturing can be a double-edged sword. In order to have a more reliable supply chain, RBH went through the painful move to US manufacturing, and now that the shift to domestic cabinet manufacturing is complete, they are set to offer loudspeakers over a wider range of prices. For this reason, RBH Sound has now brought back their entry-level Impression series loudspeakers which are surely the lowest-cost loudspeakers made in the USA in their class. In for review today is the Impression 85-i, their 3-way tower speaker from this series featuring a side firing 8" woofer with subwoofer like bass, a 5 1/4" midrange and 1" fabric dome tweeter for a modest asking price of $1,195/pair. In evaluating these speakers, we will ask how they fare against other floor-standing speakers in their class? How do they perform, and can American manufacturing still compete with Chinese manufacturing for the cost? Read our full review to find out…

READ: RBH Sound Impression 85-i Tower Speaker Review

Just what is the matter with these designers? Another really stupid design concept gaining traction that needs to stop!

So here we have another three way with the woofer have an absurdly narrow bandwidth, rolling off at 70 Hz and crossed at 100 Hz via a massive inductor.

Then we have a mid crossed well into the mid range.

That design is absolutely one of the most absurd I have come across.

Shady, it time to stop being kind to this nonsense.

My much small some large bookshelf surrounds have a far better performance then those speakers, and would have a better bass and far more impressive spl. F3 is 52 Hz.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So on-axis listening window frequency response is about +/- 2.5dB from about 600Hz - 12kHz, which is pretty flat.

Then it gets up to about +3.5dB peak around 15kHz.

25 degrees off-axis frequency response is a little better at +/- 2.0dB from 600Hz - 15kHz.

Minimum impedance is around 6 ohms.

Bass goes down to around 50-55 Hz, so definitely need a subwoofer.

Overall with a listening window frequency response of +/-2.5dB, it's a good budget pair of towers for only ~ $1K/pair.

 

[ryanosaur]

Thanks for another great review, @shadyJ .

 

[TLS Guy]

So on-axis listening window frequency response is about +/- 2.5dB from about 600Hz - 12kHz, which is pretty flat.

Then it gets up to about +3.5dB peak around 15kHz.

25 degrees off-axis frequency response is a little better at +/- 2.0dB from 600Hz - 15kHz.

Minimum impedance is around 6 ohms.

Bass goes down to around 50-55 Hz, so definitely need a subwoofer.

Overall with a listening window frequency response of +/-2.5dB, it's a good budget pair of towers for only ~ $1K/pair.

Just think about this for a minute. So you add a sub and then there is another crossover at 100 Hz. A small mid is supposed to cover that major power band. That is NOT going to happen.

The speaker is going to sound really "weak in the wind", and not at all satisfactory. Double basses, cellos, pianos, tympani, bassoons, trombones and more are just going to be emasculated and cut off at the knees.

There is a lot more to know about speakers then the FR. It tells you nothing about the power band response. It also tells you nothing about bass quality and distortion. I can tell you for certain that with a passive crossover at 100 Hz the bass quality will be dreadful.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The speaker is going to sound really "weak in the wind", and not at all satisfactory...

...I can tell you for certain that with a passive crossover at 100 Hz the bass quality will be dreadful.

Man, you talk too much.

I'll take Jame's words over yours.

"Moving on to discussion about its strengths, I would say its foremost strength is its sound quality. While I was just complaining about the hot treble, that only occurs when the speaker is facing the listener directly, but most users end up facing the speaker outward for a symmetrical stance, and in that positioning, it sounds quite nice. It has a good spectral balance and even tonality, and it has a decent amount of punch for a modestly-sized floor-standing speaker as well. Furthermore, its low-frequency extension is much deeper than would be expected of a tower speaker of its size. As I mentioned before, I was getting real bass to below 30Hz, and I doubt there are any other floor-standers in its size that can do that. The imaging and soundstage projected was also very good. It wasn’t as pinpoint precise as some other speakers I have dealt with, but those are much more expensive on average and also aren’t as small in size. As I said in my listening impressions, even though the 85-i speakers aren’t large, they can produce a large sound."

"In the end, the RBH Sound 85-i speakers exceeded my expectations. I thought that their smaller size would make for a compromised sound, but it doesn’t. They are an overall well-executed and well-made design that is a strong class competitor even though it is largely made in America which I would have expected to necessitate a much higher cost. I don’t know how RBH managed to pull this trick off, but I am glad they did. Anyone wanting a full-range sound out of a small-footprint tower should definitely take a very close look at the 85-i floor-standing speakers."

 

[TLS Guy]

Man, you talk too much.

I'll take Jame's words over yours.

"Moving on to discussion about its strengths, I would say its foremost strength is its sound quality. While I was just complaining about the hot treble, that only occurs when the speaker is facing the listener directly, but most users end up facing the speaker outward for a symmetrical stance, and in that positioning, it sounds quite nice. It has a good spectral balance and even tonality, and it has a decent amount of punch for a modestly-sized floor-standing speaker as well. Furthermore, its low-frequency extension is much deeper than would be expected of a tower speaker of its size. As I mentioned before, I was getting real bass to below 30Hz, and I doubt there are any other floor-standers in its size that can do that. The imaging and soundstage projected was also very good. It wasn’t as pinpoint precise as some other speakers I have dealt with, but those are much more expensive on average and also aren’t as small in size. As I said in my listening impressions, even though the 85-i speakers aren’t large, they can produce a large sound."

"In the end, the RBH Sound 85-i speakers exceeded my expectations. I thought that their smaller size would make for a compromised sound, but it doesn’t. They are an overall well-executed and well-made design that is a strong class competitor even though it is largely made in America which I would have expected to necessitate a much higher cost. I don’t know how RBH managed to pull this trick off, but I am glad they did. Anyone wanting a full-range sound out of a small-footprint tower should definitely take a very close look at the 85-i floor-standing speakers."

I don't care what Shady says. The speaker is 15 db. down at 30 Hz relative to 70 Hz. You can also see that it is not properly BSC compensated. The huge inductor required for a passive second order crossover at 100 Hz will just make hamburger out of the T/S parameters of the driver, due to the DC resistance of the coil. You NEVER EVER put a significant DC resistance in series with a woofer coil.

I know darn well that I could not tolerate that speaker, and I know because the laws of physics are the same for me as them.

 

[shadyJ]

Just think about this for a minute. So you add a sub and then there is another crossover at 100 Hz. A small mid is supposed to cover that major power band. That is NOT going to happen.

The speaker is going to sound really "weak in the wind", and not at all satisfactory. Double basses, cellos, pianos, tympani, bassoons, trombones and more are just going to be emasculated and cut off at the knees.

There is a lot more to know about speakers then the FR. It tells you nothing about the power band response. It also tells you nothing about bass quality and distortion. I can tell you for certain that with a passive crossover at 100 Hz the bass quality will be dreadful.

This speaker's design is basically just a bookshelf speaker mounted on a passive subwoofer. You wouldn't want to add a sub to a speaker like this unless you intend to run the speaker full-range. The purpose of a speaker like this is to get deep bass out of a small footprint - so no sub needed.

As for a small mid, many speakers have 5.25" mids, and that is good enough for most people. They aren't trying to listen to full orchestras at live levels. Few people do that. Yes, if that is what you want, a small tower will not do, but not many people want to listen at such levels, and not many people have space for the size of loudspeakers which is needed to accomplish that let alone the money that such speakers would cost.

 

[shadyJ]

I don't care what Shady says. The speaker is 15 db. down at 30 Hz relative to 70 Hz. You can also see that it is not properly BSC compensated. The huge inductor required for a passive second order crossover at 100 Hz will just make hamburger out of the T/S parameters of the driver, due to the DC resistance of the coil. You NEVER EVER put a significant DC resistance in series with a woofer coil.

I know darn well that I could not tolerate that speaker, and I know because the laws of physics are the same for me as them.

The bass driver is fine. Whatever effects the inductor has on the bass driver's performance is nothing compared to what the room acoustics will inevitably do. As for the roll-off of the response, it has a gradual roll-off because room gain will undoubtedly boost the low end of a speaker with such a deep tuning frequency. If this speaker were flat to 30Hz, it would sound very bass heavy.

 

[shadyJ]

Just what is the matter with these designers? Another really stupid design concept gaining traction that needs to stop!

So here we have another three way with the woofer have an absurdly narrow bandwidth, rolling off at 70 Hz and crossed at 100 Hz via a massive inductor.

As was said, this is more like a bookshelf speaker mounted on a passive sub. The bass driver's range goes down to port tuning which is 30Hz. You are underestimating the room gain these speakers will reciever. They are small tower speakers and are unlikely to be placed in large room that have little gain. They will go into medium to small rooms that will get lots of low-frequency gain. This type of low-end response is fine for that.

Also, I wouldn't say this type of design is gaining traction at all. The last few tower speakers I have recieved just happened to have low crossover frequencies to the bass drivers. Most tower are not like that.

 

[Bobby Bass]

Thanks for another great review James. Looks like a good all in one option if you’re on a certain budget and either don’t want, have the funds or space for subs. Rock on!

 

[Shane Rich]

James, I greatly appreciate your review and all of your efforts measuring the speakers! I also greatly respect your comments about how the speakers sound. Measurements are an important tool to help determine a speakers performance characteristics. Audioholics is one of the relatively few websites that publishes measurements along with reviews and I applaud that. It my opinion, it is what separates the men from the boys As was stated above in the comments by TLS Guy: "There is a lot more to know about speakers then the FR. It tells you nothing about the power band response". I agree, however, performing accurate sound power response measurements is a time consuming process and not the type of measurement I would expect to see in very many reviews. Therefore, I think we need to make sure our assumptions regarding how a speaker sounds are not simply based on the relatively few measurements a reviewer may be able to provide. That being said, I have attached a file showing a simple nearfield FR measurement of the 85i woofer. From this single measurement, all of the concerns regarding crossover points, baffle step compensation, and other deficiencies stated above should be resolved by any competent speaker designer. If not, I suggest there is more to learn about speaker design. And no, I will not provide other measurements. The best speaker designers I know in the industry often don't share all of what goes into their very best designs, so I will follow suit. I suggest taking James at his word on how the speakers sound, and I hope you have the opportunity to actually hear the speaker at some point. I think you may be pleasantly surprised

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

From this single measurement, all of the concerns regarding crossover points, baffle step compensation, and other deficiencies stated above should be resolved by any competent speaker designer. If not, I suggest there is more to learn about speaker design.

Some guys make a few speakers in their garages and learn a few things from the university of Google and think they’re speaker-designer gods.

And then they talk too much.

 

[luis1090]

I don't care what Shady says. The speaker is 15 db. down at 30 Hz relative to 70 Hz. You can also see that it is not properly BSC compensated. The huge inductor required for a passive second order crossover at 100 Hz will just make hamburger out of the T/S parameters of the driver, due to the DC resistance of the coil. You NEVER EVER put a significant DC resistance in series with a woofer coil.

I know darn well that I could not tolerate that speaker, and I know because the laws of physics are the same for me as them.

Although to some degree I agree with you, that frequency response graph doesn't represent in room response. I'm suspecting that the rear slot port and the room placement boosted greatly the low bass output. I don't think 15db or anything close to that but maybe 5 or 6 db. Regarding your last statement: "I know darn well that I could not tolerate that speaker", here I have to disagree with you. The speakers based on Shady review are very decent sounding. I'm suspecting that in the same room and placement you might like the sound, of course that is if you seat and listen "not knowing" details about the overall design and crossover frequency. Well now you know about the design, so no matter how good they sound, you won't like it at all, I blame Shady...lol!

 

[TLS Guy]

This speaker's design is basically just a bookshelf speaker mounted on a passive subwoofer. You wouldn't want to add a sub to a speaker like this unless you intend to run the speaker full-range. The purpose of a speaker like this is to get deep bass out of a small footprint - so no sub needed.

As for a small mid, many speakers have 5.25" mids, and that is good enough for most people. They aren't trying to listen to full orchestras at live levels. Few people do that. Yes, if that is what you want, a small tower will not do, but not many people want to listen at such levels, and not many people have space for the size of loudspeakers which is needed to accomplish that let alone the money that such speakers would cost.

I am not giving you a pass in this. That so called passive sub is not really a sub. At least not close to my definition. The issue that concerns me more than anything is driving a mid down to 100 Hz, that makes it a bass driver in my book. I don't think anyone can call 100 Hz bass with a straight face. The performance of this speaker could have been bettered with a smaller and more elegant design.

Here is the performance of my surrounds. I designed and built these in1984. My first design using computer assisted design. There were designed as my monitors to record concerts for live broadcasts. They are high spl. speakers.

This is the FR.

You can see that the F3 is somewhere between 45 and 50 Hz, and virtually identical to those RBH speakers with their so called built in passive subs. My speakers also have a 12 db. and not a 24 db. per octave roll off, so my smaller speakers have more low bass.

Now the above design is now 40 years old. I know darn well which speakers I would rather have, and it would not be those speakers with a passive crossover at 100 Hz. I am going to call that a very bad design concept.

Better results could have been achieved in a smaller speaker at no greater cost.

This is their current location as my surrounds, giving service at 40 years young.

That RBH design has marketers input all over it. My view and I won't change it, is that its design concept is invalid, and far more could have been done with less.

 

[gene]

Some guys make a few speakers in their garages and learn a few things from the university of Google and think they’re speaker-designer gods.

And then they talk too much.

It's always sad to see such negative comments from people that have NEVER heard the speakers they criticized and have also been proven wrong prior in similar type of product designs.

I am not giving you a pass in this. That so called passive sub is not really a sub. At least not close to my definition. The issue that concerns me more than anything is driving a mid down to 100 Hz, that makes it a bass driver in my book. I don't think anyone can call 100 Hz bass with a straight face. The performance of this speaker could have been bettered with a smaller and more elegant design.

Here is the performance of my surrounds. I designed and built these in1984. My first design using computer assisted design. There were designed as my monitors to record concerts for live broadcasts. They are high spl. speakers.

This is the FR.

You can see that the F3 is somewhere between 45 and 50 Hz, and virtually identical to those RBH speakers with their so called built in passive subs. My speakers also have a 12 db. and not a 24 db. per octave roll off, so my smaller speakers have more low bass.

Now the above design is now 40 years old. I know darn well which speakers I would rather have, and it would not be those speakers with a passive crossover at 100 Hz. I am going to call that a very bad design concept.

Better results could have been achieved in a smaller speaker at no greater cost.

This is their current location as my surrounds, giving service at 40 years young.

That RBH design has marketers input all over it. My view and I won't change it, is that its design concept is invalid, and far more could have been done with less.

We get it. Most loudspeaker manufacturers are incompetent and pale in comparison to your 1980s DIY designs with lots of wood panels. I can hardly take the opinions of someone that never heard the product they are criticizing seriously, especially when respectable professional reviewers like James Larson say otherwise. Carry on.

 

[everettT]

Some guys make a few speakers in their garages and learn a few things from the university of Google and think they’re speaker-designer gods.

And then they talk too much.

We know that you're not implying Dr Mark had Google in 65?

 

[TLS Guy]

It's always sad to see such negative comments from people that have NEVER heard the speakers they criticized and have also been proven wrong prior in similar type of product designs.

We get it. Most loudspeaker manufacturers are incompetent and pale in comparison to your 1980s DIY designs with lots of wood panels. I can hardly take the opinions of someone that never heard the product they are criticizing seriously, especially when respectable professional reviewers like James Larson say otherwise. Carry on.

Actually the wood is oak veneer. The speaker are built from high grade MDF, carefully damped and braced.

The tweeters are Dynaudio D 28 AF, the bass mids and fill drivers are Dynaudio D17 EXTs. Those were, and still are highly renowned drivers, and from a time when Dynaudio were at the top of the game. The speakers were designed using the software of Bullock and White.

When I was monitoring concerts in the Chester Fritz auditorium orchestra members would crowd into the green room at the Chester Fritz auditorium and were highly complimentary of those speakers. They were good speakers in 1984 by any of todays standards and they are still good speakers and there is zero reason to trash them.

That was a time when many manufacturers made their drivers available. It is retrograde that they still don't.

You can down load the 1980s driver catalog here. It is too large to attach. You will see what superb drivers were available at that time.

So the speakers may be 40 years old but are still superb speakers giving excellent results as my surrounds.

Yes, I'm not impressed with what is basically a small bookshelf speakers perched on top of passive subwoofer fed with an insanely large series inductor.

 

[TLS Guy]

We know that you're not implying the Dr Mark had Google in 65?

No, but I had an Apple 2E in 1984, and bought the floppy discs from the renowned engineers Bullock and White.
The likes of JBL and others were not even using computer assisted design back then. KEF were the first manufacturer to do this.

 

[everettT]

Actually the wood is oak veneer. The speaker are built from high grade MDF, carefully damped and braced.

The tweeters are Dynaudio D 28 AF, the bass mids and fill drivers are Dynaudio D17 EXTs. Those were, and still are highly renowned drivers, and from a time when Dynaudio were at the top of the game. The speakers were designed using the software of Bullock and White.

When I was monitoring concerts in the Chester Fritz auditorium orchestra members would crowd into the green room at the Chester Fritz auditorium and were highly complimentary of those speakers. They were good speakers in 1984 by any of todays standards and they are still good speakers and there is zero reason to trash them.

That was a time when many manufacturers made their drivers available. It is retrograde that they still don't.

You can down load the 1980s driver catalog here. It is too large to attach. You will see what superb drivers were available at that time.

So the speakers may be 40 years old but are still superb speakers giving excellent results as my surrounds.

Yes, I'm not impressed with what is basically a small bookshelf speakers perched on top of passive subwoofer fed with an insanely large series inductor.

The link to the old catalog didn't post, could you please attach again, I'd love to look at it.