Clear audio professional or klaudio record cleaner

A word of caution to anyone getting the RW600, make sure you try it out with some trashed LP for the first few washes.

Our group ordered a few RW600s, while most were fine, there was one unit that caused heat damage to the LP in the lead-in groove area.

Also, not sure whether this is the same case with Audio Desk / KL Audio, but a manual tug is required to start the LP turning with the RW600. I believe this has to do to the plastic lips (similar structure to the windshield wipers in cars) that hold the LP being too hard. It may get better when it soften with use.

saw this on youtube....RW600

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxgHENO1I2M

I purchased a RW600 from eBay. $1399 plus shipping. Sent DHL and arrived at my door 3 days later.
I too need to start the record turning with a slight nudge. 
Someone on YouTube states these have no ultrasonic transducer. Seems to clean the record well, but I'll admit I do not see a transducer in the cleaning area. You can vary the length of the cleaning (not drying) cycle by holding in the red start button. More beeps = more cleaning time. The eBay seller did not know this, but the same person who states there's no ultrasonic cleaner in the unit told me this and it works.
The eBay seller states the factory told him the Ultrasonic frequency is 80 Hz. Presumably he meant 80 kHz.

I'd like to take mine apart and look for the ultrasonic transducers.
Does someone have a photo of the transducers in the Amari?

I have no idea whether it has any ultrasonic transducer, but the RW600 certainly cleans way better than the VPI HW17. My actual concern is (if it indeed has ultrasonic transducer) how can I tell whether it is still working after 1, 2, 3 years. Is there a way to check?

There was some comments about the potential problem of the ultrasonic erasing the high frequencies signal on an LP. I tried washing a cheap (but decent) LP on the RW600 for over 20 times and couldn’t detect any reduction in high frequencies.  In contract, the highs actually sounded more extended. So, I suppose it is safe.