Glad it's working for you, it's mind blowing.
At first going with 120hz LB and then switching back to 120/144hz non LB doesn't seem like much of a difference.
Then I went 2+ weeks with LB, then tried 144hz non LB and it was a disaster in comparison.
Yes, this is really the sample-and-hold effect of non-LB 144Hz being compared to LB 120Hz.
Motion blur is actually co-related to the length of the time a visible refresh is displayed for -- this is the same reason why CRT 60fps@60Hz has had less motion blur than traditional LCD 120fps@120Hz. A display can instead stroboscopically shorten a refresh (black period between refreshes; black frame insertion effect; flicker technology like CRT) to get the same motion-blur-reduction benefit as getting more Hz on a sample-and-hold (continuously-shining) display.
60 Hz non-LB = frames continuously shine for 1/60sec = 16.7ms of eye-tracking-based motion blur.
144 Hz non-LB = frames continuously shine for 1/144sec = 6.9ms of eye-tracking-based motion blur.
120 Hz LB 100% = frames stroboscopically flashes for 2.4ms = 2.4ms of eye-tracking-based motion blur.
120 Hz LB 10% = frames stroboscopically flashes for 1.4ms = 1.4ms of eye-tracking-based motion blur.
(See
TFTCentral LightBoost strobe flash length measurements)
As you can see, LightBoost at its optimized setting (LightBoost OSD setting of 10%, but not "OFF"), have 12x less motion blur than non-LightBoost. (1.4ms versus 16.7ms is a mathematically 12x difference & confirmed in motion blur tests such as PixPerAn car). Which means, where you saw a 12 pixel motion blur trail on the 60 Hz LCD, you only have a 1 pixel motion blur trail in LightBoost mode for the same speed motion (assuming fps matching Hz). You can easily clearly read the PixPerAn car "I NEED MORE SOCKS" in the motion test; even at fast tempos, Tempo 8 and faster -- and you can have a PixPerAn readability test score of 30; something formerly only possible on CRT's until LightBoost came along.
So in effect, LightBoost 10%, of 1.4ms strobe lengths (1/700sec) has the same motion blur equivalence of a theoretical 700fps@700Hz sample-and-hold display -- via getting 120 Hz with the equivalent of lots of black frames between each refresh. Points of diminishing returns certainly apply here, but given sufficiently fast motion (FPS gaming), the motion blur of even regular 144 Hz (sample-and-hold) is still detectable to the human eye due to the eye-tracking-based motion blur problem of sample-and-hold displays. Some gamers like me still don't think regular 120 Hz LCD's are as good as CRT's -- but finally LightBoost is the Holy Grail for former CRT users and other people sensitive to motion blur (as long as they don't mind accepting TN LCD color gamut).
Personally, I use LightBoost at an OSD setting of 50%, since that has even less motion blur than LightBoost 100%, and is not too dim (like LightBoost 10% usually is for my eyes).