RBH Sound 55-ir LCR Bookshelf Loudspeaker Review

RBH 55-ir LCR Bookshelf Speaker Introduction

RBH Sound has done some cool things with the third generation of their Impression series, which has always been their entry-level loudspeaker series. They moved production largely in-house instead of outsourcing manufacturing to China. They have chosen to use more premium components and materials, like better drivers and stronger enclosure construction. And they have also broadened the range of speakers in the Impression series, which is made easy by the fact that they build them in-house, so they have something to fit a wide range of circumstances. I looked at their third-generation Impression series in my review of the 85-i floor-standing speakers, which I quite liked. However, since the Impression series now has such a wide range of speakers, I wanted to look at something very different. The 85-i was great for situations where users wanted a modestly-sized full-range speaker so they could have deep bass without needing a large-footprint speaker or the addition of a subwoofer. But what if you weren’t so constrained by not using a subwoofer and wanted something that was made to be used with a sub? Enter the 55-ir LCR bookshelf speaker.

The 55-ir is in one way an opposite design from the 85-i. The 85-i sacrifices efficiency and dynamic range in order to reproduce deep bass. The 55-ir, on the other hand, sacrifices deep bass to increase headroom and efficiency. In other words, by not chasing after deep bass, it can be a much more dynamic speaker. That was probably more broadly appealing to people since many use subwoofers anyway. That’s the idea anyway, but how does it pan out in practice? What kind of dynamics does the 55-ir offer, and does it retain the same fidelity as the 85-i? Does this affordable, American-made LCR standmount speaker have any other trade-offs? Let’s dig in to find out

Packing and Appearance

 

Since buyers are likely to receive the RBH Sound 55-ir speakers via parcel delivery, packing will matter with these speakers. The 55-ir arrived at my doorstep in some medium-sized boxes. They were double-boxed in a somewhat unconventional way. Instead of one box immediately covering the other, there was a layer of packing between the two boxes, with styrofoam edge protection and polyethylene end cap pieces. The speaker was covered by a cotton sleeve to protect it from scuffs and moisture. It’s hugged pretty tightly by the inner box, so users will want to use caution if opening the box with a knife to make sure not to cut the speaker itself. Overall, the packing was good and should do well in protecting the speakers from the usual harsh shipping practices.

   

Once unboxed, the 55-ir speakers are revealed to be a simple and tasteful design that will fit in with a wide variety of interior decors. They can be had in a satin black or satin white finish, and I received the satin white. They are tall and slender standmount speakers, but not large ones. The edges and corners have all been rounded to soften its appearance. The black drivers do stand out in the white front baffle, but they can be concealed by a white fabric grille. With the grille attached, the speakers have a fairly minimal look, but when the grilles are removed, they stand out more as loudspeakers. The finish is real paint instead of some kind of vinyl wrap. It is not quite as high-end of a satin finish as RBH’s higher-cost offerings, but it is not bad at all, especially for the pricing. Overall, I think the 55-ir LCR speakers look quite nice. They might not be as stylish as speakers with curved or slanted cabinets or more flamboyant driver appearances, but they are inoffensive and shouldn’t cause a problem with other household dwellers if placed in a living room or other shared living space.

Design Analysis

Summing up the 55-ir design in a quick sentence, I would call it a standmount, MTM, vented loudspeaker, but such a terse description misses all the details, and in high-fidelity loudspeakers, it’s the design details that can make or break a speaker. Let’s start our discussion of the details at the top of the frequency range, the tweeter. The 55-ir uses a 1.38” x 1” AMT tweeter. AMTs, an acronym for “Air Motion Transformer,” have become a lot more popular in the last decade. They can have a very wide dynamic range, as well as a response that extends high into ultrasonic ranges. Some manufacturers often mislabel them as “ribbon” tweeters in an effort to make them seem higher-end than they really are. The truth is, actual ribbon tweeters are an entirely different animal and not nearly as durable as AMTs.

  

The tweeter gets handed off to the midrange drivers at 3kHz with a 4th-order slope. The midrange drivers use 5.25” aluminum cones that are anodized black. There is a fixed phase plug that is attached to the pole piece. Some loudspeaker drivers in this class look like they have a phase plug, but the “plug” is attached to the moving assembly and is cosmetic only. The 55-ir woofers also have cast aluminum baskets instead of stamped steel frames. Cast aluminum is usually a better option over stamped steel since it’s often more rigid and paramagnetic. The motor uses a 3” x ⅝” magnet, and venting is done underneath the spider.

   

The deepest frequencies are generated by the ports, which are a pair of 4” long and 2” diameter tubes that are flared on the exterior side. The enclosure is made from HDF, high-density fiberboard, which is tougher than the standard MDF used in most loudspeaker construction. The panels are ½” thick and there are two window braces that separate each woofer from the tweeter. The cabinet has a generous amount of polyfill-type stuffing to damp internal pressure waves. The terminal cup holds a pair of sturdy five-way binding posts. The grille uses magnetic adhesion in order to make for a cleaner appearance. The grille frame might create some diffraction effects, as with so many grilles, so the speaker might sound best with the grilles off, although my guess is that the differences would be slight, if they could be heard at all.

As we saw in the 85-i speakers from the Impression series, an interesting feature of the crossover circuit in the 55-ir speakers is the use of a self-resetting poly-switch. This protects the tweeter by raising resistance above certain electrical current levels that would place the driver’s voice coil in danger. With a 3kHz crossover at a 24dB/octave slope, the tweeter should be pretty well protected anyway, but that additional layer of protection is nice to have, especially since the AMT tweeter is likely to be an expensive component. 

Zooming out a bit, a good AMT tweeter with a 3kHz crossover and two decent 5.25” midrange/midbass drivers should be capable of producing a lot of SPL, especially if the speaker isn’t trying to tackle deep bass. With the addition of a subwoofer, these speakers should be able to hit hard despite their modest size. But let’s see how that plays out in some real-world listening…

Listening Sessions

In my 24’ by 13’ (approximately) listening room, I set up the speakers a few feet off the back and side walls and with an equal distance between the speakers and the listening position. I angled the speakers to face the listening position. The listening distance from the speakers was about 9 feet. No room correction equalization was used. Processing was done by a Marantz 7705, and the amplification was done by a Monoprice Monolith 5x200 amplifier. The subwoofers used were a pair of MartinLogan Abyss 10s.

Music Listening

To see what the 55-ir speakers could do for some orchestral music, I found a terrific series of recordings covering the music of Howard Shore entitled Howard Shore: Anthology - The Paris Concerts. These are some live performances of selections of Shore’s work by Orchestre Philharmonique de Radio France. As Shore is best known for his scores for the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies, there is much music from those films, but there is a good sampling of his other styles as well, including music from the 1996 David Cronenberg film Crash. It’s an odd selection overall, with so much from the very conventional Lord of the Rings and also a lot from his more far-out collaborations with David Cronenberg. Shore has scored many other popular movies that are not represented in this selection, including his collaborations with Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, and Jonathan Demme! However, what we do have is performed beautifully and recorded with technical excellence, so I won’t complain too much. I streamed this release from Qobuz in a 24-bit/96kHz resolution. 

The 55-ir speakers gave this orchestra a wide soundstage befitting of a concert hall performance. It’s an aspect that I think many fans of the Lord of the Rings music will appreciate since the original film scores were recorded in a studio that tried to eliminate the room’s acoustics. In these recordings, we get a more acoustically rich rendition, which was beautifully reproduced by the RBH speakers. There is also a greater sense of soundstage depth than the original soundtrack, giving this music a more “epic” feel. As a recording trying to keep a symphonic hall feeling intact, imaging isn’t as precise as a studio mix might be, but we do get a good sense of instrumental section positions. The performers are more pieces of a whole rather than discrete elements. As far as Lord of the Rings music goes, these tracks are definitely what I would turn to for a listen rather than the original scores.

With respect to the album’s covers of the Cronenberg scores, while I enjoyed those tracks, I am not so sure I would turn to them over the originals. By nature, these are more extravagant performances, but of music that didn’t call for extravagance to start with. The covers of the tracks from Crash were an interesting and unusual take on what was somewhat experimental music to begin with. Some of the original score was traditional orchestral, but some was electric guitar pieces, and it was a delight to hear it all being given a symphonic hall treatment. The 55-ir speakers highlighted the differences nicely on account of their ability to project a wide soundstage, which is a more appropriate attribute for music performed in a symphonic hall. In either case, the music sounded fabulous on the 55-ir speakers, and listening to this album assured me that anyone looking for speakers for orchestral music has a great option in them.

  

We recently visited Michael Stearns in a review with his score for Baraka, and in looking through his work, I was surprised to discover he released a new album that is like a return to his space music roots in the 1980s. Beyond Chaos is a self-released album by Stearns from January 2025. It has the vibe of his classics of yesterday but shows an artistic progression, so this music is much more than a mere retread. This is spaced-out electronic music, but it is more driven and grandiose than just an ambient atmosphere. Stearns paints on a large canvas, and this is an epic album with a big sound, so I thought it would be a great opportunity to hear what the 55-ir speakers could do for something that demands a vast soundstage. They aren’t big speakers, but can they deliver a big sound?

The album started off with some understated tracks comprised of much low-frequency content. The subs handled the deeper stuff, but the 55-ir speakers took care of everything above 80Hz with an authoritative rumble. The album opened up a few tracks in, with synths and choral vocals creating an immense soundscape, and it was relayed by the speakers in an enveloping soundstage that stretched out past the placement of the speakers. The design of the 55-ir speakers suggested a wide dispersion of acoustic energy that should make for an expansive sound, and on this music, it delivers what it promised. Its wide soundstage is reinforced by its dynamic capabilities; this music is mixed at a low nominal level so that when the higher-energy moments hit, they really stand out. The 55-ir speakers brought some real muscle to the more energetic passages, which gave the album a nearly cinematic presentation. But what it reminded me of even more than a big-screen experience is an evening at a planetarium, and that is not a coincidence since Stearns is well known for his planetarium scores. RBH’s 55-ir speakers are a perfect fit for that kind of sound; they produce a spacious soundstage along with powerful dynamics for the more dramatic passages.  

For something that emphasizes a single human voice, I streamed a new release from Nnenna Freelon entitled Beneath the Skin. As one might imagine from an artist who is a regular nominee at the Grammys (nominated seven times but no wins as of yet), the recording quality is impeccable. Beneath the Skin is a jazz album comprised entirely of songs composed by Freelon, as opposed to her prior albums, which featured many covers. Nnenna’s rich and deeply-controlled voice makes any of her albums ideal for seeing how well a sound system can realistically reproduce a human voice, although that is a rather clinical use of her music, which is so filled with artistry and joy. Can we appreciate both the artistry as well as the sound system’s proficiency? I also streamed this album from Qobuz in a 24-bit/96kHz resolution.

The soundstage on Beneath the Skin, as presented by the 55-ir speakers, had terrific imaging. It didn’t hurt that the album was mixed for a greater stereophonic effect than most jazz albums. Many albums put most instruments on center stage with a smattering of left-to-right imaging, but Beneath the Skin spread the instruments out more. The percussion, in particular, seemed to have pieces on the far left and far right of the soundstage. The French horn had a well-defined placement on the hard right; the muted trumpet had a slight rightward position; and the piano spread with pitch, rising from left to right. Freelon’s voice had a tight center imaging. Freelon’s voice was richly reproduced, and the 55-ir speakers gave her a vivid and detailed account, which made her a nearly tangible performer in my room. Likewise, accompanying instruments had realism thanks to the clarity and equanimity lent to them by the speakers. Since the 55-ir speakers were intended to be listened to with subwoofers, I did have the subs active during this album, but I turned them off and let the speakers run full range for a couple of tracks to get a sense of the 55-ir’s bass extension. I did lose the lowest octave, which took a bit of the oomph out of the double bass, but otherwise the music was intact and perfectly enjoyable. Bass drums still had thump, and double bass was still given a fair amount of muscle. A measured room response of the speakers alone showed very usable bass down to 60Hz, which is almost enough for much of the spectrum of acoustic music recordings. Yes, the subs added depth, but it was on the 55-ir speakers to reproduce the vast majority of the sound for my listening experience with Beneath the Skin, and they did so brilliantly. I am sure that jazz enthusiasts will like what they have to offer.

  

To see what the limits of the 55-ir speakers are, I listened to an EP titled Chapter 4 by Fre4knc. This EP contains six tracks of rowdy drum’n’bass tunes filled with big kick drums, sharp synth leads, and massive basslines. It’s music meant to be played loud, and can be a big strain on a loudspeaker at a high enough drive level. How hard could I push the 55-ir before I could sense any audible stress?

Pretty hard. To be honest, I didn’t even get them there because I backed off the volume at a point where the woofers were visibly getting a real workout. For most speakers, pushing them to the point where the woofers are visibly moving is likely getting close to their maximum linear excursion. For the 55-ir speakers, that happened at such a high loudness level that I doubt most people would ever drive them that hard. Two good 5.25” midwoofers and an AMT tweeter crossed over at 3kHz with a 4th-order filter is a recipe for a very wide dynamic range. Hats, snares, and claps had enough pop to make me wince at a high loudness level. The woofers kept up with the subs in reproducing midbass, and they had a nice concussive jab for the toms. Without subs, they are pretty limited in low-bass output; they can do some low bass, but I wouldn’t task them to play bass-heavy music like Chapter 4. With a sub (or two), the 55-irs are a great choice for those who like to jam their tunes loud. Highlight track: “Insider Advice” with its wild bassline and timeless warning against consuming worms.

Movie Watching

To see what the 55-ir speakers could do for a modern Hollywood sound mix, I decided to watch Gladiator II. I hadn’t seen it yet and didn’t feel a particular need to watch it, but maybe with Ridley Scott back at the helm as director, it wouldn’t be a complete hack job. I knew the sound mix would be the best that money can buy, and the music composer, Harry Gregson-Williams, has a solid resume of good scores, so I thought it would make for a good exhibition of film sound. Gladiator II concerns the son of Maximus, who becomes enslaved to fight in gladiatorial combat much like his father.

Gladiator II turned out to be much more hokey than I expected, and I wasn’t expecting anything resembling realistic Roman history. While I enjoyed the first Gladiator film, it did set the bar pretty low in terms of historical authenticity, but this movie drives into pure fairytale. At least the sights and sounds were exciting, and the 55-ir speakers helped to make the action scenes thrilling. The best scene occurs at the beginning with a spectacularly-staged Roman naval battle. The 55-ir speakers exuberantly reproduced the fireballs sent by catapult into the Roman vessels, and the crunching of the Roman galleys crackled and exploded with dynamism. Swordfights and archery made mincemeat of soldiers, and all the combat sounded weighty and believable. A bizarre fight against baboons was also supplied with a lively sound by the speakers, and the violence was made visceral by their energetic presentation. Another gladiator fight occurred with a rhinoceros, which was also convincingly relayed by speakers, even as I knew that the rhino had to be a CGI animation. Dialogue intelligibility was all perfectly fine, and I didn’t have trouble understanding anything that was said, even as there were many thickly accented characters. Harry Gregson-Williams delivered a grandiose if unmemorable score, and it sounded terrific on the RBH speakers. To be honest, I was disappointed by Gladiator II even though I wasn’t expecting greatness to start with. However, the production of the movie was first-rate, and the delivery of that technical excellence by the 55-ir speakers made it watchable, even as the screenplay sank further into silliness as the runtime went on.

  

A movie with a creative sound mix was the first Smile, so I opted to watch Smile 2, which had received fairly positive reviews (considering it was a quickly-made sequel to a successful, low-budget horror movie). This movie concerns a popular singer who is about to embark on a major world tour but is fighting a painkiller addiction stemming from injuries from an auto accident that killed her boyfriend. When she attempts to buy some Vicodin, her dealer has a violent episode and kills himself while smiling, after which she hallucinates seeing that same eerie smile from people around her. I hadn’t seen Smile 2 yet, but the first one had a creative and surreal sound mix that was great for exhibiting the soundstage abilities of a loudspeaker.

While Gladiator II didn’t meet my expectations, Smile 2 certainly exceeded my expectations. It turned out to be a gripping and dark movie that explored different aspects of the premise of the original. The sound mix was a wild ride, and it sounded terrific on the 55-ir speakers. Our protagonist’s descent into a nightmare was relayed with a striking and nearly experimental sound mix. Sharp synthesizer bass stabs and distorted bells are set against reverberant drones, and the 55-ir speakers gave a forceful presentation to this sound design. Much of the sound came from the dazzling music score by Cristobal Tapia de Veer. There was a fair amount of deep bass usage in this score, and the subs took care of the deep end, but outside the lowest two octaves, the 55-ir was more than capable of reproducing the music with verve. As a portrait of a pop music star’s world, the movie did have a few performance sequences of our protagonist in action, in concert and music video production, and the bombast of these scenes was given a large, cinematic feel by the speakers. Dialogue was perfectly understandable, and I never had problems following conversations. One of many memorable sequences was when a possessed man smashed his own face into hamburger meat with a barbell weight, and the gruesome audio effects had a sickening level of detail communicated by the 55-ir speakers. It was wonderfully disgusting, and made to sound so by the sound system. Smile 2 was surprisingly good, at least in my opinion, so horror fans definitely should give it a viewing, and it should be watched with a high-performing sound system with speakers as good as RBH’s 55-irs.

RBH Sound 55-ir LCR Bookshelf Loudspeaker Measurements

 

 

The RBH Sound 55-ir speakers were measured in free air at a height of 7.5 feet at a 1-meter distance from the microphone, and the measurements were gated at an 11-millisecond delay. In this time window, some resolution is lost below 250 Hz, and accuracy is completely lost below 110 Hz. Measurements have been smoothed at a 1/12 octave resolution.

 

The above graph shows the direct-axis frequency response and other curves that describe the speaker’s amplitude response in a number of ways. For more information about the meaning of these curves, please refer to our article Understanding Loudspeaker Measurements Part 1. 

The above shown graph isn’t the most neutral response we have seen, nor is it the most colored. There is a sag centered at 2kHz that is accentuated by a small peak right before it. I didn’t notice this peculiarity in my listening, although I would have guessed it would be audible from looking at it on a graph. This caused me to go back to do an A/B comparison with my custom-made 1802G reference speakers that have a ruler-flat response in order to hear how exactly such an irregularity registered in audible experience. The difference was evident but not as blatant as I would have guessed. In general, some vocals seemed a bit recessed on the 55-ir speakers relative to the 1802G speakers. It occurred to me that this kind of dip is similar to what was termed the “BBC dip,” which many older speakers (and even some modern speakers) have. The BBC dip deliberately recesses the range from 1.5kHz to 3kHz to avoid a “shouty” sound signature. While I think that kind of a curve might have been beneficial for older speakers and recordings that had technical limitations causing shoutiness in that range, I don’t think it’s needed anymore. In my comparison against the neutral 1802G reference speakers, I did prefer the reference speaker’s sound, and found the vocals to be a bit more open; however, I didn’t find the 55-ir’s voicing to be offensive in the slightest, and I still quite enjoyed them.

 

 

The above graphs depict the 55-ir’s direct-axis and horizontal dispersion out to a 90-degree angle in five-degree increments. Information on how to interpret these graphs can be read in this article: Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II.

One of the things that we can glean from the above graphs is that the AMT tweeter is fairly well-controlled but not quite perfect. While there is a slight bump up in energy above 5kHz, the dispersion is nicely smooth and uniform. It doesn’t beam very hard until above 14kHz, and there are few dome tweeters that could do that, at least without the assistance of a waveguide. Regarding the recession around 2kHz, I think the sharp dip is due to a slight phase conflict in the crossover circuit. It’s a fairly high-Q null, so I don’t think it makes a very audible difference on its own. I do think what more greatly characterizes the sound of this speaker is the slight depression in the response from 2kHz to 5kHz. Basically, the upper midrange is slightly scooped out, but this happens more on-axis than off-axis. Relative to a neutral response, this makes the vocals a bit more recessed and a tad less open, although the difference isn’t massive.

The above polar map shows the same information as the preceding graphs but depicts it in a way that can offer new insight regarding these speakers’ behavior. Instead of using individual raised lines to illustrate amplitude, polar maps use color to portray amplitude, and this allows the use of a purely angle/frequency axis perspective. The advantage of these graphs is that they can let us see broader trends of the speaker’s dispersion behavior more easily. More information about interpreting this graph can be read in this article: Understanding Loudspeaker Measurements Part II.

In the polar map of the 55-ir, we get a good look at how the tweeter’s response narrows as frequencies rise, but it does so at a very gradual rate. We also get a better look at how the crossover circuit isn’t quite blending the tweeter with the woofer perfectly, but that is manifested more off-axis than on-axis. The shame of it is that I think this woofer can have a better match with this tweeter, but it’s possible that the MTM layout of the design is making that more difficult, or that a perfect match might require a much more complicated crossover circuit that the designers didn’t think was worth the extra expense. I can’t blame them if the latter reason was the case because the speaker does sound good as is.

 

The above graph shows the 55-ir’s response behavior along its vertical axis, where zero degrees is directly in front of the tweeter, negative degree values are below the tweeter, and positive degree values are above the tweeter. As an MTM design, the 55-ir runs into lots of comb-filtering and phase conflicts at off-axis angles. The good news is that off-axis angles are not as important on the vertical axis as it is on the horizontal axis. That being said, this graph does tell us that it is important to keep the listener’s ear height roughly level with the tweeter. Listeners have about a +/- 10 degree angle off-axis before phase conflicts start taking bites out of the response. This is all very typical of MTM speakers. I would have guessed that the 55-ir speakers would have been even more restrictive with a 3kHz crossover frequency, but it isn’t as restrictive as it might have been.

 

The above graph shows the 55-ir’s low-frequency response captured using ground plane measurements (where the speaker and microphone are on the ground at a 2-meter distance in a wide-open area). The 55-ir has a flat response that starts to descend at about 100Hz. The ports are a bit over-damped relative to the woofers, so port output is not quite on the level of the woofers. Port-generated output holds strong until 60Hz, at which point it begins to roll off very quickly, as would be expected of a ported system. While these speakers can do some lower bass OK on their own, they are intended to be used with subwoofers, and I would use an 80Hz crossover frequency or higher for best results.

The above graph shows the electrical behavior of the 55-ir speakers. RBH Sound specifies them to be 6-ohm speakers, but I would characterize them as 4-ohm speakers. The minima occurs at just above 200Hz where the impedance bottoms out at 3.5 ohms. It’s not a hugely stressful load on amplifiers, but I wouldn’t plan on blasting these speakers on a budget AVR. The woofers are clearly wired in series which halves their impedance. This elevates the system sensitivity, but it will draw a lot more current from amplifiers, which will create more heat. Cheap amps won’t be able to handle a lot of heat generation. Something else to note here is the dip in the lower frequency saddle, indicating that the port tuning looks to be around 75Hz. The saddle peaks are also fairly even in height, indicating that the resonant frequency of the woofers is a close match with that of the enclosure.

I measured the 55-ir’s sensitivity to be 89.5dB for 2.83v at 1 meter. This is very close to RBH Sound’s sensitivity spec of 90dB. This is higher than average for a standmount speaker; indeed, I had to raise the amplifier gain by 7dB for the 1802G speakers to level-match them to the 55-irs in my comparison. However, this sensitivity is not surprising for the design of the 55-ir. This helps to ameliorate the low impedance, since users will not have to crank the volume for the 55-ir speakers to get loud. With a max recommended power spec of 175 watts, they can handle a fair amount of power and are capable of a very wide dynamic range for a standmount speaker.

Conclusion

Before bringing this review to an end, I will briefly go over the strengths and weaknesses of the product under evaluation, and, as always, I will start with the weaknesses. What are the weaknesses of RBH Sound’s 55-ir speaker? I don’t think it has any major shortcomings, but it isn’t perfect. One aspect of it that could be a problem is the relatively low impedance load. It’s not a super-expensive speaker, and, for that reason, it could easily be used with a typical AVR, but its current draw might be stressful for a run-of-the-mill AVR’s amplifier for louder listening at a long duration, such as a movie’s running time. Midrange AVR amps should be fine, but I would be making sure whatever amp they are run on can comfortably handle a true 4-ohm load.

I could complain about the 55-ir’s less-than-perfect frequency response, but I liked the sound character presented by the speaker, so that doesn’t bother me. However, if you want total accuracy out of the box, these speakers are not for you. They could be easily equalized to have a fairly flat response since the horizontal dispersion pattern is consistent, but I didn’t do that, and they still sounded fine to me.

  

Their bass extension is OK, but they are meant to be used with subwoofers, so even though they have two woofers, don’t expect deep bass from them. This isn’t a point of criticism but rather a caveat for anyone looking at them for standmount speakers to be run full-range.

RBH 55-ir Pack a Punch!

With no other nits to pick, let’s now discuss the strengths of the 55-ir speakers. Their greatest strength is their dynamic range versus their size. These speakers pack an enormous punch for standmount speakers that are not huge. Of course, that was a design goal, and it is achieved with stellar results. The 55-ir speakers could handle a small to medium dedicated home theater with no problem. Anyone looking for reasonably-sized speakers for louder listening levels in systems that include a subwoofer has a great choice here. In my own listening, they had more dynamic range than I think I would ever ask for.

The sound quality was very good as well. Music and movies alike sounded great on the 55-ir speakers. They would be a terrific choice for a two-channel system (where subwoofers are included) as well as a surround sound system. Despite a slightly uneven frequency response, they still sounded smooth and detailed. They could produce a wide soundstage with excellent imaging. I enjoyed everything that I listened to on them, and I am sure all but the fussiest listeners would do so as well.

Outside of the audio performance, their appearance and build quality were very good as well. They aren’t wildly stylish, but the rounded corners and satin white finish make for a classy appearance. The white fabric grilles are also a nice plus if you want the speakers to have a lower profile in a white-walled room. They have a sturdy build quality with a nicely-braced cabinet and high-performing drivers.

The minor miracle in all of this is that RBH Sound can get this all done with American manufacturing in a reasonable price range. While the drivers are not manufactured in the USA, the enclosure is made and assembled domestically. RBH Sound is one of the very few manufacturers that produce an affordable speaker domestically. Most other loudspeakers in this class are made in China.

 

RBH Sound vs The Competition

Speaking of other loudspeakers in this class, what are the 55-ir speakers competing against? For high-powered standmount speakers around $800 each, there is the MartinLogan Motion XT B100. The B100 has a very powerful AMT tweeter, a massive port, and a beefy 6.5” driver. In my brief time with them, I loathed the scorching hot tweeter and would definitely not trade the 55-ir speakers for the B100s. There is also the Monitor Audio Silver 100 7G with its 8” woofer. Monitor Audio knows how to make a good speaker, so while I have not spent any time with the Silver 100 7G, I suspect it would be pretty good. That being said, I wouldn’t guess that its driver complement could match the dynamic range of the 55-ir drivers, so I wouldn’t get it expecting the same level of dynamics as the 55-ir. JBL has two products in this category: the HDI-1600 and Synthesis 4309. I expect that both would be pretty good, especially if my experiences with other HDI and Synthesis products are anything to go by.

At a lower price point, there is Arendal’s 1961 Monitor. These have a beautifully neutral response and pack a punch as a standmount MTM speaker. I wouldn’t guess that they would quite be able to match the 55-ir speakers in terms of dynamics, but they are certainly worth considering in this space. At a much lower cost, there is the Hsu Research CCB-8, another high-powered standmount speaker that we had a very positive experience with. It also has a tremendous dynamic range for a speaker of its size, although its treble isn’t quite as smooth as the 55-ir speakers, nor is the build quality on the same level, although that is to be expected for the pricing difference. It should be noted that none of the above speakers are made in the USA (all likely Chinese), so if domestic manufacturing is important to you, RBH doesn’t really have any competitors for this class of loudspeaker. 

 

To sum it up, the RBH Sound 55-ir is a great solution for systems looking for high output with a pleasing sound where a subwoofer will be used. They aren’t super cheap speakers at $800 each, but they aren’t especially pricey either. And they manage to be competitive while using a good amount of American manufacturing. I enjoyed my time with the 55-ir speakers, and if I were shopping for speakers in their class, they would definitely be a top contender. 

The Score Card

The scoring below is based on each piece of equipment doing the duty it is designed for. The numbers are weighed heavily with respect to the individual cost of each unit, thus giving a rating roughly equal to:

Performance × Price Factor/Value = Rating

Audioholics.com note: The ratings indicated below are based on subjective listening and objective testing of the product in question. The rating scale is based on performance/value ratio. If you notice better performing products in future reviews that have lower numbers in certain areas, be aware that the value factor is most likely the culprit. Other Audioholics reviewers may rate products solely based on performance, and each reviewer has his/her own system for ratings.

Audioholics Rating Scale

• — Excellent
• — Very Good
• — Good
• — Fair
• — Poor

Metric	Rating
Build Quality
Appearance
Treble Extension
Treble Smoothness
Midrange Accuracy
Bass Extension
Bass Accuracy
Imaging
Dynamic Range
Fit and Finish
Performance
Value