NAD 787 receiver.. Will satisfy audiophile?

I had a NAD 777 and was generally pleased. I'm 85% audio to 15% video use. Until it just stopped working and the warranty company could not repair, I was paid out and went in search of next thing. I read many reviews, and selected an Arcam AVR 600. I do use better cables throughout, but at the time kept all the same. The comparison music wise was measurably better with the Arcam to the NAD. Much more quiet, much of that term pleasurable.
Good Luck

I have a NAD 763 receiver, in which the digital inputs no longer work. As a stereo receiver, this unit sounds amazing to me. If I am losing any merit here, on Audiogon, so be it. I have driven any number of speakers, including my modified Klipsch Lascala's, and, the NAD equals everything else I have tried. Yes, I am in my early sixties, and, consider myself, still, a golden eared individual. Mr.D

it doesn't surprise me that most of the posters above aver to repair issues with their nad units, which has certainly been my experience. they sound good when they're working, however.

Has anyone listened to the Arcam AVR750? It's supposed to sound quite good.

Of course EVERYTHING is system/setup/acoustics/lifestyle/ taste,etc, dependent. Still, to simply address your answer the easiest, I'm DEFINITELY recommending some higher end offering that includes a HIGH QUALITY EQ of some sort! That said, my first thought goes to the Anthems. Probably as clean of a sound as you could expect from a surround receiver, plus highly regarded EQ for smoothing out the INEVITABLE bass/room/acoustics problems that need EQ'ing out. Otherwise, expect audiophile grade disappointments that a good EQ could otherwise GREATLY ASSIST!
Yes, probably the later model Anthem's.