Arcam vs Marantz vs NAD receiver?

I am buying an AV receiver that will be used for music at least as much as movies. Speakers will likely be B&W M-1 Sats and PVD-1 sub. I am looking at Marantz SR 7007, Arcam AVR 400 and NAD 758. All have different specs but don't bench test that differently. I have heard all three and liked them all, but I am concerned about the Arcam and especially the Marantz running out of steam at higher volumes driving 5 channels. The NAD to its credit hardly loses any punch even driving 7 channels. Marantz has the most features, but the lightest amp section. Your thoughts?

but I am concerned about the Arcam and especially the Marantz running out of steam at higher volumes driving 5 channels. The NAD to its credit hardly loses any punch even driving 7 channels. Marantz has the most features, but the lightest amp section. Your thoughts?

Was this an actual personal experience within your system or is this fostered by confusing techno babble on published specs only? Let's not forget that mfgs do not gave an apple-to-apple specs presentation. Amps churning X watts per channel as listed MAY NOT DO SO
(I) at all levels across the frequency response. and
(ii) and not with all channels driven

I doubt that the ARCAM will max out based on my personal experience. IMO it has the best audio performance by a big margin -- Google the reviews BUT consider an audition personally with a kit proxy to your own if an in-home is a no-go

IMPORTANT: check The term of the warranty. By way of example, many only have 1 year, the ARCAM Avr600 IS 5 YEARS (DUNNO ABOUT THE 400)
Hi KN,

Marantz for sheer musicality, multi channel processing, and Audyssey room correction. Adjust crossovers and channels properly and won't be an issue for the Marantz to drive the B&W sats.

I can't speak for the Arcam or Marantz, but I know that NAD receivers have the dynamics and punch that I desire. Now my only personal experience is with my 2004 flagship T773 which is a 52+ pounds beast that has a fantastic amp section. Even though I used it mainly as a pre/pro with an outboard amp, I am currently using it in a dedicated 2-channel setup and it handles the task wonderfully.

If you are considering adding an outboard amp in the future, maybe the most feature laden model would be the one to consider. My understanding is that Marantz, Arcam, and NAD all do pretty well for 2-channel music.

Thanks for your replies. The data comes HT review bench tests. Not manufacturers declared specs. Thanks for the votes for all three;-). I think the Arcam is probably the most high fi of the three. I might buy all three to test and keep the one that works best in my space. It's only an 18x12x8 ft room, so I am sure they can all fill it with decent amount and quality of sound.

Im not buying that the Marantz is going to shine over the Arcam or Nad for sonics from it's analog and amp sections, honestly. In that respect, I'd prob say the Arcam is the best sounding unit, on it's own. But I'm assuming.
If you don't need the room EQ so much, I'd recommend Arcam's products. If you measure the room to have lots of peaks in the bass response up to 300hz, I'd consider the Marantz, and wait for a deal on a multi channel amp or stereo for the front 2 ch, at least. I find your amp sections in these mass marketed Denon's, Yamaha's, Marantz's, Sony's, and the likes to have marginal amp sections. In this genre, I like the HK's over the years, then the Denon's, for your standard Chinese AV receiver assembled fair.
My prob, again, with the ARcam, is no room EQ, which can DEFINITELY help level playing fields, make of for sonic nightmare issues, and make a much more accurate response acccross the spectrum, deal with some acoustics Issues, etc. Not so with the Nad and Arcam. You really need to add an EQ in the subs, at very least, and be extensively careful in set up for rest of the speakers if you don't gots no EQ - cause even large living rooms have lots of modes that need knocking down, with limited placement and seating options (especially with a wife-unit to appease).
But, all things on their own, I go Arcam, then the Nad, likely, then other receivers down the line.
I second the Arcam!
The Arcam won't run out of steam. It does come with a mic,and room calibration. I've never used any Marantz, but have a lot of experience with NAD. I like the Arcam better, and use it at home myself.

**dealer disclaimer**
Arcam wins. I listened carefully to both the NAD T758 and the Arcam AVR 400 driving the B&W sats in two channel, and the Arcam was clearly better. The NAD sounds good, but the Arcam was more refined with more body and detail, and an airier treble. The step up from the T758 was evident even driving the nice but relatively modest B&W sats. The Arcam should be better since the list price is actually closer to the NAD T777, although I was able to pick one up on sale as they are being phased out for new model.

I tried listening to the AVR 400 with the B&W PM1 stand mounts just for fun. Wow, are they good - phenomenal disappearing act and soundstage. Anyway, that experience made me rethink the speaker choice. I decided not to get the B&W sats/sub system and instead ordered a Monitor Audio Apex system with three Apex 40's in the front and two Apex 10's for the surrounds.

Not decided yet on the sub now since the Monitor Audio's go down into the 50 Hz's (fronts) and 60 Hz's (rears), perhaps there is some more flexibility for sub choices than with the little B&W's. Any sub suggestions appreciated - looking for a balance between tuneful bass for music and deep bass for movies. Again room size is 8' high x 18' wide x 12' deep, is reasonably well treated, but size will limit the longest waves. While there is no point in overloading room with a giant box and driver, pressure and speed with good tone are desirable. Upper budget is about $1500.

Thanks again for the input, helpful.