What's the best way to clean vinyl records?

To Ebuzz: once i am able to effectively clean a record, I don't see a need to repeatedly re-clean it. In fact, as Doug pointed out, leaving any fluid/residue on the record- a risk in cleaning- makes things far worse than just leaving the record alone. So, I avoid recleaning at this point as a matter of routine, but as my cleaning methods have improved, I have recleaned a number of records- some which I thought were irretrievably compromised by groove damage were in fact contaminated by a combination of ground-in pollutants, and glued firmly into place by tar from cigarettes, previous record cleaning by earlier owners (I buy mostly older pressings), etc.
The most effective 'cheap' solution I have found is AIVS No. 15 -agitate, soak, vacuum, followed by lab water/vacuum. (A VPI 16.5 will do yeoman's work here and is effective).
I've been using a lot of different methods lately, and multiple steps/approaches yield improvements for compromised records. Currently using the big Monks and the KL with reagent water. Cleaning fluids on the Monks vary, depending on a variety of factors.
Doug, have you tried Syntax's 'reverse clean' (my term, not his) ? Ultrasonic wash, then plopping on the Monks for a point nozzle dry? Extremely effective on problem records.

BPoletti- yes, probably more. But, I think you'll agree, that there are
probably that many different methods, approaches and favorite machines,
fluids and different combinations of steps or sequences. I never used the
DiscDoctor, from what I gather, it requires multiple rinses, and several
plays, according to the manufacturer (at least with the Miracle Cleaner, not
the one-step) , before optimal results are achieved.
In the fluid world, I have used enzymes (from Walker as well as AIVS,
which cut my work time in 1/2), along with a variety of other fluids I'm
playing with now (Monks, the TM-8 reboot of the old Torumat, and Hannl,
among others). Everybody seems to have their favorite. I have found the
enzyme cleaners to be very effective if followed by a pure water rinse.

B Poletti, when you say 'no second rinse,' I take that to mean you are doing a rinse step with water after the DD, just not multiple rinse steps, right?

Doug- the methods seem to work synergistically. I know people who swear by ultrasonic alone, but suspect that their records are already pretty immaculate and they are just going for that extra dimension in sound that comes from an ultrasonic clean. Me, on the other hand- I’m dealing with 45+ year old records that have not been properly cleaned, if at all, often seem to have some sort of sludge or other contaminant, and ultrasonic alone proved ineffective to completely remove this ’stuff’ (some of which I suspect is cigarette or cooking fumes, as well as stuff that may have been put on the vinyl at some put to give it a sheen or perhaps to reduce surface noise). In any event, I have succeeded in salvaging a number of records I would have ordinarily written off as a lost cause, some quite valuable or difficult to find. On the other hand, just using the Monks alone, which gives a very good result with few of the drawbacks of a wand machine-- deeper, more effective vacuum in my estimation, no static and far less fuss in terms of cleaning the vacuum contact area-- still seems to lack that final ’finish’ that the ultrasonic provides. And, the question i had posed to you-- better late than never-- was reversing the process by washing in US and vac drying on the point nozzle. I have been advocating a used Loricraft plus a DIY US machine for this purpose at far lower cost than the Monks + KL. (The Audio Desk doesn’t permit you to remove the record between wash and dry cycles; though you can easily do that on the current KL, the manufacturer recommends against it because it can apparently wet the electronics in the machine). There is also a less expensive Monks now which I haven’t tried.
So, DIY ultrasonic plus a point nozzle (Monks or Loricraft) can not only be more cost effective, but possibly, more effective in result.  I still use the AIVS No. 15 plus lab water on the vacuum machine side, but frankly, I get the same results on the Monks using the Hannl fluid that Syntax recommended followed by a lab water rinse. I think it has to do with the point nozzle’s effectiveness, and less to do with the fluid. But, whatever machines and fluids used on the vacuum side, it seems like the combination of methods works extremely well for me. And though I’m not terribly patient, I can get a good work-flow going; the Monks is actually quicker than you’d think, and the ultrasonic takes time too, though less labor intensive, so I’m running both machines simultaneously. Enough! You get the point. Thanks for responding.