Why so few devices with BNC's??

@russ69  Uh....  yes, we know that.  A few bucks (maybe) vs a few cents.  And yet the Anthem STR preamp (>$4000), NAD M33 (~$6000) and McIntosh C49 ($5500) and have RCA's.  This is "premium" gear using a demonstrably inferior implementation of the spdif protocol.  To get BNC on McIntosh you have to get the $8000 D1100.  There are countless other examples.  Yet few "audiophiles" really seem to care.  Despite that people debate over about premium coaxial cables with RCA terminations along with all manner of other unmeasurable unicorn juice like fancy power cables, elevating speaker cables off the floor, power condtioners, etc etc. 

And in this case one might make the technical argument that the mismatch doesn't become significant until the signal frequency is in the RF, so not audible.  Well, maybe.  Yet how many people here obsess over the sonic differences between 24/96 and 24/192 or whatever?  God save us.

@russ69  Uh....  yes, we know that.  A few bucks (maybe) vs a few cents. 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The RCA's only weakness is long cable runs, the XLR solved that issue and is a standard at this point. The BNC offers nothing in the way of improved sonics.

@russ69 If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The RCA’s only weakness is long cable runs, the XLR solved that issue and is a standard at this point. The BNC offers nothing in the way of improved sonics.

Is BNC genuinely better sounding in audio components than well implemented RCA? I have to believe if manufacturers truly felt BNC was superior sonically it would be used in place of RCA on a regular basis. Some of the absolutely best sounding audio components are utilizing RCA connection.

Charles.

If AES/EBU is available why offer BNC?

BNC works good in high vibration environments, like aircraft. The locking feature is not needed for home audio.