I'm glad Doug took that one on, and diplomatically, to boot. As to cleaning new records, there are a number of issues going on, aside from the mold release compounds (which are part of the plastic nuggets now, and not a spray, like PAM*):
if you look closely under good light at a new record, you'll often find fingerprints and other detritus (in addition to paper liner 'lint'). It is a manufacturing process with all that entails.
Aside from cleaning new, out-of-the-shrink records, I often re-clean after initial play. The stylus will dredge up material- whether this is the result of not de-horning metal parts used in the manufacturing process, or simply the result of the stylus in effect 'cleaning' the groove, I find that some new records are actually quieter after first play and re-clean.
If new records are sleeved in paper, static is almost inevitable. I find the Zerostat to be overkill (and to often do more harm than good in creating a charge) and dry brushes to be ineffective at getting into the grooves.
As Doug noted earlier (whether in this thread or another one, resleeving is pretty essential, unless the record was originally packaged in a high quality inner sleeve). And, apart from fingerprints and other crap on brand new surfaces, those cheap paper sleeves used on major label releases often leave paper lint.
Some new records benefit sonically more than others from a clean before play, but it is noticeable. To make a valid comparison, you'd probably have to compare two identical pressings, and assume that there is no copy to copy difference in sonics. (Since, if you play, then clean, you've added a variable in your comparison by playing the record first, before cleaning, see above).
One of the biggest gripes I've heard over the years, apart from the time and effort involved in cleaning, is the sonic signature left by cleaning fluids. These fluids have improved considerably over the years, and there are many home brew formulae as well. The trick, in my estimation, is to get the cleaning fluid OFF the record once it has done its job.
I'm currently using a combination of methods that includes enzyme cleaning and lab water rinse, which does a good job in removing the residue of any cleaning fluid. (That's what makes records sound noisier or muffled by cleaning- fluids left on the record). I also use a commercial ultrasonic machine with a small amount of surfactant. The newest commercial ultrasonic device designed for records uses no surfactant whatsoever, and some users substitute lab water for the distilled water usually recommended by the machine manufacturers.
Clean stylus is key here too.
I buy used records 10/1 over new records, because i'm looking for early pressings, rather than reissues. (Most of the new records I buy are new releases, not reissues). Used records definitely require cleaning and I've brought some records back from virtually unplayable to better than VG+, sonically. (Many times, the old records have been abused on grotty tonearms and the grooves are just chewed up- cleaning isn't going to 'fix' that).
You said you didn't want to spend big dollars on a state of the art cleaning machine, whether a Monks type or ultrasonic. Thus, my earlier recommendation of a basic vacuum machine with a two step process- the AIVS No 15 (which has both enzymes and detergents, simplifying what is otherwise a multi-step process), followed by lab water. This can get you pretty close; I haven't fooled around with steam, I know some folks swear by it.
And since you said you have records from the 60's, you'll probably be surprised at what a good cleaning can do to those, sonically, even assuming you've taken good care of them.
____________
*I think in ye olde days, the release compounds were applied, not mixed into the plastic compound. But, there is considerable debate about the effect of this stuff, even today.
