Record cleaning and care

For those of your taking great care and using record cleaning machines for your vinyl lp collection are you using a pure rinse after your cleaning cycle and is their evidence this helps with purer sounding playback ? 
I am using a Okki Nokki RCM and using their cleaner and also trying MoFi Deep Cleaning Solution. Been thinking of trying Enzymatic cleaners. I recently purchased a MoFi pure rinse solution and have been using on last few purchases, hard to tell if any difference but I can see a pure rinse good in theory. Also found a lab grade Ecoxall super deionized water and UV treated to kill all bacteria that cast less for a gallon as a 16 oz pure rinse I think will be just a pure of particles and residue. Do know cleaner records and stylus sounds much better! 
I use Okki Nokki with Audio Intelligent three step cleaning solutions, the third and final step being pure water. I rinse twice. The step two is either Archivist formulae with no alcohol - that's what I use - or something else whatever they call it. Step one is enzyme. Recently, I have started using their pre-cleaner, solution #15 too, before everything else. Regardless of how dirty or not the records look before cleaning. Yes, a little better. I also soak for at least 3-5 minutes before vacuuming off with all fluids except water. Give at least five revolutions each way with Okki Nokki to spread the fluids. I do five clockwise/five counter-clockwise/five clockwise sequence.
So, the short answer to your question - yes, rinsing with water makes a difference, when the records are quite clean already.
You can use LAST or Walker pure water, many use some lab grade water. Audio Intelligent is available from Elusive Disc - good guys. I have never tried Okki Nokki concentrate that comes with the machine.
Yes, I do a rinse step, because it gives me another shot at removing contaminants/cleaning fluid residue from the record surface after the first pass of fluid cleaning and vacuum; whatever fluid residue remains after that first pass is itself a contaminant, and ought be removed.
Sometimes, you read of folks who find their records noisier after wet cleaning. Part of this may not be just that the cleaned record reveals more of what is in the grooves, but that a ’bad cleaning’ --leaving fluid residue (which includes the contaminants it is supposed to bond with) on the record--dries on the record and makes things worse.
I buy mainly older records and in strong light, you can see the water spotting left in the deadwax from haphazard wet cleanings where the fluid dried on the record. Since the cleaning fluids contain some sort of surfactant to break surface tension, getting a record dry without removing this fluid will leave some sort of chemical residue even if your cleaning and vacuum step is effective in removing particulates, condensates from fumes (according to those old Percy Wilson papers) and other liquids (beer, old cleaning fluids that weren’t effectively removed, whatever) that are deposited on and dry in the grooves.
In a quick and done wet record cleaning process, the record will get dry but this doesn’t mean that it is clean. Thus, the rinse as follow up step.
I also don’t know what affect leaving some sort of chemical residue on records does, long term. You read of people suffering from bag rash--a chemical interaction between the inner sleeve and the record. There’s various reasons offered for why this occurs- plasticized leaching from the plastic used in the inner sleeve, a combination of heat and pressure of record storage, particular types of plastics used for the inner sleeves, etc. One theory I’ve toyed with--i have no way to prove this-- is that the effects of such haphazard record cleaning and use of after market inner sleeves made of plastics result in some chemical interaction, long term. So, strictly for preservation of the record, long term, I find some comfort in the idea that I’ve done as much as I can to remove that chemical residue.
Truth be told, my cleaning practices weren’t all that sophisticated when wet cleaning became more common by the mid-’80s here in the States with the introduction of the VPI and Nitty Gritty machines. (the Monks was always a rare bird). And sometimes, I’ll pull out and play a record that had been cleaned back then on a VPI RCM, using whatever fluid I was employing at the time, including home brew with a bit of alcohol, and the records play fine and don’t exhibit any bag rash from decades of storage in those old Discwasher VRP sleeves.
For water, I buy Reagent Grade I in bulk, far cheaper than the audiophile branded pure water. But even that may be unnecessary. I interviewed various people at the archival facility of the US Library of Congress several years ago on cleaning and preservation practices. The Library uses D/I water and one preservation specialist there suggested that this was all that was needed.
Keeping brushes or applicators and other materials that come in contact with the record surface clean is also essential in my view. Easy enough to do during and after a cleaning session. I wash the brushes and applicators in a solution of high grade IPA and Reagent I water and also pre-wet and rinse them in advance of cleaning.
Sounds like compulsive behavior but, unless the records have been damaged, they typically play very quietly without clicks, pops or groove noise. (I’ve been successful in getting some records that sounded like they had suffered groove damage to a higher state of play through multiple cleanings, combining conventional wet cleaning and vacuum with ultrasonic cleaning). The combined cleaning methods seem synergistic. Though I’ve varied my practices in small degrees over the last few years, this approach- of multiple cleanings, using different methods, along with a pure water rinse--has improved results for me based on what I hear after this multi-step, multi-process cleaning. Here’s my current set-up, although I was able to get pretty good results using my old VPI and a rinse step.
So does anyone use a ultrasonic cleaner and does it just do a much greater job and remove all ticks/pops or at least 95% or more?? 
Yes, not really, it depends.
What is the condition of the record?- cleaning won’t change damage; some phono cartridges and phono stages will also emphasize surface noise.
It also depends on the level of cleaning you are comparing against ultrasonic.
I use ultrasonic for new, unmolested vinyl, but for old records (and some new ones), I still use conventional fluids and vacuum (Monks) in combination with ultrasonic.
I think many people adopted US originally for convenience. I do think it adds something to the cleaning process, but if you are buying old copies, I have found that it is not sufficient. It is a wonderful complement to a good basic cleaning regimen though.
Others may have a different view.
Nothing removes audible scratches or repairs groove damage, how much of that you will hear and to what extend will depend on your particular table/cartridge set up.
Yes, quite a number use ultrasonic machines, some in combination with traditional vacuum machines. Records can be made very clean.
Well the pops and clicks I'm hearing sound from more like dirt or static as I can't see scratches with the naked eye in particular. Some are brand new records, some are old but in very good shape with appear no scratches. I have an EAT C Major with Ortofon QC Blue cart. I've been told that cartridges that  " remove " or " lessen " pops and ticks are rolling off the highs. 
But my question is if a perfect or very clean record and using Ultra Sonic and Vacuum RCM can pops/clicks be virtually eliminated or is that just inherent with vinyl no matter how clean ?
Every copy of every record is different. I have many, many records that play beautifully, no noise, pops, clicks, etc.  Whether you can eliminate those from a record by cleaning is not guaranteed since some of the problem records I have encountered over the years had no visible indicia of damage. Some records will play quietly with minimal (or even no) cleaning;  this is so even if a record has surface scuffs or hairlines; others-- noise, whether ticks or groove chew, even if pristine to the eye no matter how much you clean. 
The absence of clicks and pops due to the stylus/cartridge and phono stage is not necessarily a reflection of a less revealing set up. Read some of the posts from Ralph Karsten (@Atmasphere) about phono stage design and clicks and pops as an example. 
Record cleaning is a good idea, even with new records.  I buy a lot of used records and had gotten a bit lax recently, not cleaning them all.  The shop I buy most of them from cleans most of their records (except the bargain bin stuff) with a VPI 16.5.  I have one at home, and when I buy records from other sources I always clean them. 

Long story short, I was listening to something I bought there with my girlfriend and it looked super clean and shiny, but was really noisy.  She said "you should clean that" to which I responded "It's already been cleaned, it won't do anything".  To my surprise, it was noticeably quieter after I cleaned it.  Needless to say, now I'm cleaning EVERY record before I play them.

I've been using the Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solution Premium One-Step Formula No. 6.  I don't do any rinsing after cleaning.

Cleaning won't fix a worn or poorly pressed record, but it can do wonders for some of the second hand (and new) records you buy.
... the pops and clicks I’m hearing sound from more like dirt or static as I can’t see scratches with the naked eye in particular. Some are brand new records, some are old but in very good shape with appear no scratches.
Visual assessment of an LP is tricky business. I have records that look awful but play perfectly, and vice-versa.
I’ve been told that cartridges that " remove " or " lessen " pops and ticks are rolling off the highs.
Not necessarily. Different stylus profiles may be more or less susceptible to pops and clicks, and the same is true of phono stages.
... a perfect or very clean record and using Ultra Sonic and Vacuum RCM can pops/clicks be virtually eliminated or is that just inherent with vinyl no matter how clean ?
I have many LPs that play with virtually no pops or clicks, including records that are more than 50 years old. Cleanliness - and an LP’s initial quality - are critical to how well an LP will play.
Post removed 
I wish, @elizabeth Here’s an example. I bought this record that was not the soundtrack to the album in the movie Cloud Atlas (a somewhat odd sci-fi pic) but something different. It was actually used as a prop in the movie, and they pressed two limited runs. Record was 40 bucks new and sold out by the time my copy arrived from EU. It was tragically warped. I have one of those flattening machines and every time I thought of it I’d give it a whack on the flattener, then play it. Today, voila, since I got the thing- I dunno four or more years ago, it played cleanly for the first time!
I could go buy a copy for like $700-- yeah, it’s that stupid now.
Some records, even when graded high (I will only look at M- used) play like poop. Cleaning helps.
If you get good results-- and the key isn’t just washing the things, it’s getting the cleaning fluid and contaminants off the record, you’re good.
Maybe I’m a little OCD. I guess my point is, not all this stuff is so easily replaceable cheaply.
Post removed 
Post removed 
Post removed