Do you change the default RAW conversion settings?

Question

I have used Sony (and formerly used Panasonic MFT) cameras (a900, a850) for two or three years and never had any reason to change the default RAW conversion settings.  Five weeks ago I started using Sony's new a77, and for the first time am not satisfied with Aperture's default RAW conversion.  (I recalibrated all my monitors -- twice -- thinking that something in my color workflow had got busted.)  The default a77 RAW file conversion results in an overly-saturated, "Disneyfied" picture.  I have found that by sliding "Boost" almost to zero, and cutting "Hue Boost" by half, I end up with a much more life-like, atmospheric, picture -- and one that closely matches the default rendering of RAW files from the a850 and a900.
1.  Do you change the default RAW conversions settings?  Why?
2.  To what units, specifically, do the scales of these controls refer?
3.  It seems that Hue Boost provides a range of settings that corresponds to the print settings "Perceptual" (= zero hue boost) to "Relative Colorimetric" (= full hue boost); does that make sense?
The User Manual, as usual, provides a solid concise explanation of the RAW Fine Tuning Brick.
Any experience you can share is appreciated.  Thanks.
(Added:
(It seems conceptually wrong to me to have these controls be part of the RAW converter.  Are there other adjustments in Aperture that do the same thing?)
--Kirby.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

Answer 1

William -- many thanks for your help.  I will almost certainly change the default for my a77 (as well as for the Nex-7 I used for a week).
Are there is any other adjustments mathematically similar to the "Boost" or "Hue Boost" sliders in the RAW Fine Tuning Brick?  I ask for two reasons:
- Mostly I'm just trying to figure out what they do, and strengthen with knowledge my quiver of Aperture effects.  According the the User Manual, they change the overall contrast, and the amount to which the hue is changed as the overall contrast is increased. 
- In practice, it makes sense to me to have the RAW conversion produce the "flattest", least "effected" image possible -- to leave _aesthetic_ adjustments to me.  I don't want to use the RAW Fine Tuning controls as part of my workflow; I want to know how to get the same increase in contrast and control of hues using other adjustments (that, specifically, don't require de-mosaic'ing).  Apple seems to indicate that the use of the RAW Fine Tuning controls may be the best approach:
For images that consist of saturated primary and secondary colors, such as an image of flowers in a lush garden, shifting the hues to their true values has a desirable visual effect. However, this is not visually desirable for images containing skin tones.
The implication is spelled out in the sentencesthat follow: use the max setting for flowers, and the minimum setting for portraits.  Isn't it odd that this recommendation is left to the RAW converter, and is buried deep in the User Manual?