1. 00:32:407 (1) - How about moving this NC to 00:31:782 (6)? Seems to follow vocals nicer here imo. I think the jump down to the 00:32:407 (1) is still perfectly intuitive without the NC there.
   
2. 00:42:407 (2,3) - Feel free to ignore, but I'll complain a little more about this. I guess by having the 2 end at 00:42:720 on the blue tick you're following that guitar sound. I think that's alright and all, but I think it would be much better to include the bass hit at 00:42:616 in the mix. Can you try shortening the 2 by 1/4 and adding another circle to make a triplet? Here's what I did:
   
   Example

   

1. What do you think about reducing AR by 1 tick? I think it's a bit too fast in this spread.

UnitedWeSin wrote:

Just a few more things, feel free to deny.~

[Insane]

1. 00:32:407 (1) - How about moving this NC to 00:31:782 (6)? Seems to follow vocals nicer here imo. I think the jump down to the 00:32:407 (1) is still perfectly intuitive without the NC there. That was actually my mistake, fixed accordingly.
   
2. 00:42:407 (2,3) - Feel free to ignore, but I'll complain a little more about this. I guess by having the 2 end at 00:42:720 on the blue tick you're following that guitar sound. I think that's alright and all, but I think it would be much better to include the bass hit at 00:42:616 in the mix. Can you try shortening the 2 by 1/4 and adding another circle to make a triplet? Here's what I did: Hmm, I prefer to keep it as it is since i think the bass-drum isn't really noticeable compared to 00:42:720 - and the current one plays better to me - i tried the triplet but it didn't play good to me since the pattern was too streamy.
   
   Example

   

[Easy]

1. What do you think about reducing AR by 1 tick? I think it's a bit too fast in this spread. Alright.

So nazi orz