Drying time after a VPI record cleaner?


Hello everyone, I am curious what you all are doing in terms of drying time for your records after you clean them on a VPI vacuum record cleaning machine.  

I am using the VPI model 16.5.  My routine lately is to put the record on the cleaning plater, blast with an air compressor to remove the easy dust, apply 1 step cleaning formula with brush for 1 minute, vacuum for 3 revolutions, flip repeat.  After that, I set the record vertically in a small kitchen dish drying rack made of plastic coated metal.  I can fit 13 records in the rack, all vertical, none touching, and only coming in contact with the rack on the extreme edge of the vinyl, so no contact to the actual grooves.  I then leave them to fully dry out for several hours or overnight.  The thought is, I do not want any liquid that didn't get vacuumed up to remain. (though they look more or less dry to me, I figure it is possible to have some moisture still in there somewhere)

My question is, is this last step necessary?  Do you just put the record back into the sleeve after vacuuming?  Or, if you do use a dish rack like I do, how long to you let them dry?
marktomaras
The one important thing I see missing here , is not if your machine is drying your records but no mention of a rinse after the cleaning.  Probably at least as important in the process as any other step is.
I wish I still had an access to Scanning Electron Microscope to check if Rinsing step is actually necessary. I use deionized 18MOhm water but always wonder if some non-ionic detergent (I use Triton X-100) should be added to it?... 
One telltale may be how water behaves on a record surface after it has been cleaned and dried. I suppose if you had access to a lab that could identify chemicals traces in suspension, you could measure the "pure water" first to get a baseline reading, then put a little such pure water on records that have been cleaned by different methods (rinse v no rinse), let it soak a bit, then draw it off and measure what’s in the water. Someone with scientific experience or training in chemistry could probably suggest a better, more accurate way. Have not researched what such lab tests would cost, or whether it is common for industry or bio-tech facilities to have such devices and how accurate such testing would be. If there is a scientist who knows, perhaps they can share their thoughts?
My non-scientific answer is that I don’t want to leave chemical residue on the record and to the extent a couple spins on a conventional vacuum RCM dries but does not entirely remove such residue, the rinse step gives you another shot at that.
My impression of "one steps" is that they are either for convenience or for use in machines that have reservoirs that apply fluid (which is also really about convenience).
I suspect that a lot of the current cleaning fluids aren’t chemical heavy anyway, and are mostly pure water with some surfactant to break surface tension and some mild detergent effect, perhaps with the addition of alcohol (which is often identified as an option by companies like AIVS).
The only thought I have about the ’who cares- i can’t hear it’ is this: if you are young enough, and stay with the medium, your system will likely improve; the second consideration is long term preservation and the possible effect of leaving vestiges of chemical in poly-type sleeves. Is cleaning one of the reasons people experience bag rash, i.e. an interaction between material on the record and the non-paper inner liner? Vinyl records seemed to endure pretty well as a stable medium without cleaning or fancy inners, leaving aside user abuse, kludgey tonearms/"needles" or low grade cleaning sprays or wipes offered in the past. The US Library of Congress has in its archival practices suggested that a rinse step is advisable. I certainly see no harm in it. On the other hand:
-the purity of the water in the "one step" may be higher than the purity of the "rinse water" so there may be a tradeoff: some minute traces of chemical residue v mineral or organic stuff left by the rinse water- which one is worse?
I recently pulled a record out I hadn’t listened to in decades, and judging by the inner-- an old Discwasher VRP--it was probably cleaned on my VPI back in the ’80s, with who knows what fluid. The record looked and played great, and I didn’t re-clean it using all of my current fancy cleaning gear.
Quote "Has2be, do you even rinse when you are using a "1 step" formula?"

@marktomaras,
wasn't trying to ruffle your  feathers .
Been doing vinyl since the late sixties and in the very
early eighties I sprung for a Loricraft RC. Even as good
as it is and with trying first hand the so called one step
cleaners, a rinse after the clean showed some particulate
and less clear pure water than what went on the surface.
If its convenience that is your priority , by all means a good one will fit your needs. No argument.
If you want a cleaner groove with less particulate gunk
and the One step cleaner that gunk has arguably absorbed,
then a rinse or two works for that. A good USB microscope
can and does easily confirm the difference.
A lot of it is directly related to the condition of the records and
the difference between what you may of owned from new,
and the unknown handling and condition of the grooves as
to what they were exposed to organically and worse mechanically from improperly set up arms and cartridges.

I was only offering what I have found to be true with the experience of trying most ways to balance convenience with
results. Sorry if that's a problem for you........