> I'm actually looking forward into owning an AVR and starting "simple"
I'm glad to hear that because reading your article, as each new sub-problem arose, I felt increasingly bad for you. We've all been in that spiraling sinkhole where every issue spawns two more :-).
I totally get the conceptual appeal of inexpensive, compact soundbar products: all-in-one, single input and wireless satellites. It seems great. It can even work as long as your sound-field expectations are modest AND you: 1) Happen to have a compatible room, 2) Commit to one incompatible, closed-ended product line, and 3) Nothing goes wrong because, as you discovered, these all-digital, integrated systems are largely opaque. While the initial cost can appear attractive, every dollar is locked into an inflexible system which can't grow beyond what its manufacturer offers and which may not be as good a fit in another room or reusable with other components.
I've never bought (or even considered) a soundbar, even in a context where it might have fit, been slightly cheaper or looked better with less effort - and I'm NOT an audiophile snob or insensitive to price. I'm an engineer so I see this like any other system design, an architectural choice with no perfect solutions, just different sets of trade-offs. Like many engineers, I've learned to value understanding systems from first principles, sometimes right down to the underlying physics of things. This often leads to some useful default assumptions, things which until proven otherwise, I broadly assume are probably directionally true. For example, when it comes to speakers, physical traits like surface area, volume and position matter. While it's true things like wave guides, linear arrays, digital signal processing and acoustic tricks (eg bouncing sound off ceiling/walls) can make smaller or poorly positioned speakers sound bigger or better than they should - it's still using cleverness to overcome a fundamental physical deficit.
Bottom line: all-other-things-equal, there's a point beyond which overcoming the deficits of smaller, fewer or poorly placed speakers yields diminishing returns - no matter what the marketing claims. So, I've always leaned toward investing my limited budgets in decent 'fundamentals' based on physics and economics. In audio, the physics means things like ensuring components have enough size and coverage to handle one of two generic residential sizes: small (bedroom/home office) and large (den/living room). Economically, it means investing in reuse so I'm not always starting over when I move/remodel and can repurpose older components into smaller or larger configs in the future.
Two examples: 1) The main speakers in my teenage daughter's bedroom were the best surrounds I could afford for our living room back when she was born. Getting slightly larger, better full-range surrounds back then paid off because they were good enough and flexible enough to have three lives (so far). 2) The first and cheapest AVR-ish amp I ever bought is now so old it has no digital inputs- but with a $15 BT/Wifi to RCA adapter, it's now driving the speakers above my garage workbench and it's a much better amp than I would ever have bought for our garage. If that AVR or those speakers had been integrated into an all-in-one box or limited to a proprietary ecosystem or digital protocol (wired or wireless) they'd probably already be in a landfill.
Another first principle is 'Ears are analog' and so are speakers and amplifier output stages. While digital formats can be great for storage and transport, all digital audio must become analog before you hear it. Your architectural choice is where in the signal chain it happens. Because home theater loudspeakers must be powered with a wire anyway AND because modern digital wireless transports are complex, opaque and not usually designed with real-time latency guarantees, an objective case can be made there are overall more advantages and less disadvantages to delivering home theater audio the last few feet on an inexpensive, universally compatible, broadly available analog wire. The delay is measured in nanoseconds with no latency, compression, pairing, interference, re-negotiation or channel hopping.
But these advantages do come with trade-offs. Instead of going wireless for satellites, I've had to get a little clever hiding wires, like running flat cables behind baseboard in a rental and, later, spending $70 on the right tools to run in-wall wires in my home. I think these trade-offs are worth it to get the reusability, flexibility, compatibility and transparency (for debugging).