Ultrasonic cleaning with kirmuss and loss of high frequency details.

@1stump.  Exactly.
@tubelvr1.  No way, you are misinformed.  I have a Kirmuss.  And I have tried KLAudio and the other mega expensive unit. (Shh. I bring my records over to one of several friends, and clean on their dime.  All I have to do is bring over some beer). Much easier than playing with the Kirmuss as I have a small apartment.  None of them noticeably change the HF.  What they do is change the balance somewhat, because the grunge/noise/ticks are significantly reduced in most cases (unless it is a pristine, super quality pressing, like some of audiophile pressings).  In the case of a great pressing, the difference is not as noticeable. 
    The advantage of the Kirmuss over many other US systems is that you can use your own "concoction" and are not required to use his pre-cleaning ritual, which I would certainly use on dirty records, but likely not 3 times, and likely not on clean records. I wish I had two machines - one to wash and one to rinse...I believe his pretreatment is glycol, which serves the purpose of a wetting agent.  I still have a stock of photoflo, so I use a little of that in the wash.  Or as we used in the days of bathroom darkroom, try one very small drop of Joy in the 2 gallons of distilled, deionized water. There are other recommendations in the great pf online article; I think he  uses Triton X-100 as a wetting agent. 
   So @tubelvr1: find a ritual that works for you, and there is no need to wash 3x, especially if the record was initially what we used to call "clean."  You might also try a brief rinse with distilled deionized water.(Buy another Kirmuss. lulz) If you are concerned with the sound balance, so what was suggested: take 2 copies of the  same record, overclean one, and compare to the uncleaned.  
  Finally, the frequency of the Kirmuss machine is fairly low IIRC, about-35 kHz, and with a 2 gal tank, there is plenty of "room" to not be affected by washed off dirt, with reasonable fluid changes. This is more or lesss what every other US cleaner does.  The big advantage of the Kirmuss is that the system hardware is equivalent to a good grade roll your own or some of the more expensive units out there, it looks better than a roll your own, allows great flexibility compared to a roll your own, and is priced only a little more than a roll your own - the big tanks that are well made are expensive. So if no other commercial US damages records, I would say it is virtually impossible for the Kirmuss to behave any differently.  

Just saw a post on Twitter from the Munich High End show with a photo of a Breu Revolution US machine. Anyone heard about this? 

I watched the video on the Kirmuss machine done during the 2018 RMAF.  I have no issues with any of the claims made, but I would never ever be bothered to go through that ritual with every single new LP I buy.  I already find that I waste a lot of time on "maintenance" (changing light bulbs, buying stuff for our house, fixing minor plumbing problems, etc.)  These constant intrusions have made me understand why some want to be very rich, which for me would mostly mean that I could pay someone else to perform those onerous tasks, which would include cleaning LPs with a Kirmuss or any of several other US machines or even my trusty VPI HW17, which is also a pain in the arse to use.  So, I need a butler, not a Kirmuss.

My research into ultrasonic cleaning of LP's has lead me to conclude that the 35kHz frequency of the Kirmuss (and even the 40k of other machines) is too low. 60k and 80k creates more gentle water molecule activity, a good thing considering the rather fragile and vulnerable vinyl composition of LP's. In addition, I'm unconvinced by the arguments made by the Kirmuss pitchman in regard to the removal from the LP groove of organic materials via their cleaning solution.

My experience with US cleaning leads me to conclude with @bdp24 on the frequency aspect. I own a Audio Desk and a DIY machine as @rushton proposed w/the filtering system. I recently saw a US machine with a frequency sweep mode, although it still operates at 40khz, seems to make sense. I’ve noticed from experience with my 6 liter tank and the Vinyl Stack spinner, that even with a 4 lp ability, I find the best cleaning is done with two lp at a time @ 45C, on the slowest rotation, for 40 minutes.

Kirmuss notes his positioning of his four devices as critical to the cleaning performance. That makes perfect sense in a way but as a layman, I’d question that somewhat, as these frequencies are being transmitted through water. It seems to me that water would break up the flow of these frequencies? So, this machine I saw on Amazon w/ the "sweep" mode @ under $300 makes sense.

Kirmuss makes a lot to do about the application of his fluid (with the same brush, over & over) yet says not one word about using the same fluid/water over & over without a filtering system. Very surprising!