00:37:042 (1,2) - Space lower to give 00:37:432 (1,2,3,4) - more emphasis?
Could try something like:
00:37:432 (1,2,3,4) - This is now way too high spacing compared to 00:49:900 (1,2,3,4,5,1), 01:14:835 (1,2,1,2,1) - etc.
I get you want to keep your aesthetic, but I don't think it's a good idea to hurt your contrast...
00:49:510 (1,2) - Space lower to put the impact on 00:49:900 (3,4,5,1) - instead to support the song better
00:50:289 (3,4,1) - This linear flow feels a bit out of place, especially with the variable spacing for differing rhythms.
00:50:289 (3,4) - Would suggest just increasing spacing for the 1/2 and lowering the spacing on the 00:50:484 (4,1) - 1/4 to represent what's happening rhythmically?
01:00:809 (7,1) - 1/4 spacing is much higher than your other instances i.e. 00:54:575 (1,2), 00:17:952 (1,2) - etc. would nerf a bit.
01:05:874 (3,4) - Why do you change the spacing here while the new sound is on 01:06:263 (1,2,3,4,1) - ?
Would try:
i like the movement and when you play it feels like something here 01:05:874 (3,4) and i feel the change in movement justifies the change anyways changed it to something different to better support this reasoning
01:08:406 (3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Spacing here is higher than 01:05:484 (1,2,3,4) - even though the pitch is lower?
Should nerf a bit ^
01:13:666 (7,8,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - Would scale down by 0.9x~ or so, seems a bit gunga spacing compared to earlier at 00:49:510 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - and the general intensity throughout the map which makes this feel like a bit of a diffspike IMO.
01:14:250 (2,3) - Would lower spacing on these jumps to make the buildup more obvious and help differentiate the spacing here compared to 01:14:835 (1,2,1,2).