There is a qualitative difference in cleaning: some of it has to do with 'best practices' (almost no additional cost, save for two sets of applicators, vacuum wands and some level of purified water, like distilled, which is reasonably cheap). Fluids can make a difference to the degree that they are harder to remove from the record and may leave a residue of chemicals and contaminants on the surface.
The next steps up would probably be DIY ultrasonic.
But @golden210-you said you were impacted by the cost of other upgrades, so where do you want to go with this? You want to know if you are really missing anything?
I did a comparison of cleaning methods a few years ago that I wrote about, using a very basic old VPI machine v. my Monks (a fancy vacuum machine). I did not include an ultrasonic step to keep the playing field level. For most practical purposes, there was little sonic difference between the results on two different machines, though the Monks can do a better job on challenged records and I prefer it to the VPI. That came down to best practices, separate wands, keeping all contact materials with the record scrupulously clean, etc.
I do think the combo of ultrasonic and conventional fluid/vacuum is synergistic, but if I had to choose one type of machine, given that I buy a lot of older copies, it would probably be the Monks rather than an expensive 'made for LP' ultrasonic. Thankfully, I don't have to choose, and DIY ultrasonic can be had for far less cost. It also gives you more flexibility and provides a feature set that you won't find in any commercial US RCM.
Not sure if this is what you asked for~ short answer is you could probably improve your results both by how you are doing it (not the equipment itself) as well as the inclusion of DIY ultrasonic.
The next steps up would probably be DIY ultrasonic.
But @golden210-you said you were impacted by the cost of other upgrades, so where do you want to go with this? You want to know if you are really missing anything?
I did a comparison of cleaning methods a few years ago that I wrote about, using a very basic old VPI machine v. my Monks (a fancy vacuum machine). I did not include an ultrasonic step to keep the playing field level. For most practical purposes, there was little sonic difference between the results on two different machines, though the Monks can do a better job on challenged records and I prefer it to the VPI. That came down to best practices, separate wands, keeping all contact materials with the record scrupulously clean, etc.
I do think the combo of ultrasonic and conventional fluid/vacuum is synergistic, but if I had to choose one type of machine, given that I buy a lot of older copies, it would probably be the Monks rather than an expensive 'made for LP' ultrasonic. Thankfully, I don't have to choose, and DIY ultrasonic can be had for far less cost. It also gives you more flexibility and provides a feature set that you won't find in any commercial US RCM.
Not sure if this is what you asked for~ short answer is you could probably improve your results both by how you are doing it (not the equipment itself) as well as the inclusion of DIY ultrasonic.