On the TV side, I'm torn...did you notice recently that you can get a 60" Sharp Aquos Quattro for under a grand now at Worst Best Buy?
Any TV that cheap at that size is likely skimping on part quality or image processing.
The 2011/2012 plasmas have much better glare filters which makes using them in a well lit living room more realistic these days. Beamer and Verno are correct about everything else, if you want a television then plasma is the best bang for your buck. One thing to keep in mind that no one mentioned is that they are hefty, my friend has one that is like 75-100 pounds easily. It's usually not a big deal because once you get it on a stand it rarely moves but just something to keep in mind.
Many consumers are swayed by false conditions they observe in box stores. Most companies will dial up brightness to the maximum which makes LCD televisions appear more attractive in casual viewing but doesn't hold up under real conditions. Plasmas are also hamstrung by past maladies like image retention, picture burn in and high power consumption. Most those things haven't been true for several years but public education takes forever to swing the other way and box store employees aren't well trained. Plasma televisions aren't as attractive to younger shoppers who want sleeker electronics with good aesthetics, particularly females.
It's unfortunate because plasmas represent the best feature spectrum for many types of media viewing but most people simply don't know or understand why. I still have an old LCD that I spent a bundle of money on but when it dies I am definitely getting a plasma.This comment was edited on Feb 8, 2012, 16:45.