Overall

- a bit to dense rhythmically I'd say, adding an even easier diff and maybe renaming diffs would be good spread wise
examples of too much density:
00:01:162 (2) -
00:08:659 (2) -
00:10:065 (1) -
00:12:408 (5) -
00:17:562 (1) -
00:25:059 (1) - this one I specifically think is actually on a not so strong sound, before the next strong one
might be harder to play without tho since it introduces the 1/2 rhythm better

here too 01:33:704 (1) -

01:09:807 (2) -
01:18:710 (1) -
01:21:053 (5) -


- I also think some patters aren't as justified, but since I'm not as experienced I really would like to see how you respond

- I feel like you could remove a lot of notes in case you want to make this easier

Suggestions

- I wonder why this has a finish hitsound at the end 00:26:699 (7) - might be a old school style thing,
but still seems a bit off since the other two have more prominent lead sounds at least
here too 01:35:344 (7) -

- I really don't get why you mapped this 00:42:630 (3,4,5) -
in my eyes you literally just mapped that
to have Symmetrie with these 00:44:505 (3,4,5) -

the problem is that the latter ones actually have stronger sounds on them. removing the one in the middle 00:42:865 (4) - makes way more sense to me and is actually still Symmetrical enough.

I can hear a 8-bit Drum sound at that point,
but it's still not as important as these 00:44:505 (3,4,5) -
here too 01:51:275 (3,4,5) -

- this comes a bit out of nowhere and is not just hard but also a bit misleading I think 00:48:019 (1,2,3) -

so the before that we have three very easy 1/2 sliders with finish sounds 00:45:442 (1,2,3) -
on that trumpet ish 8-bit lead the problem is that one too 00:48:956 (3) -
but not the others.

Two hitcirles on both white ticks are good/simple enough and still represent the change in music

- I think is a bit weird that you made it so you need to press the sliders right when the lead stops 00:52:939 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -

I would try out to remove the first circle and move everything one tick back. I tried and I think it works a bit better, but that might just be me.

If you disagree please give a reason as to why...
here too... 01:56:664 (1,2,3) - ye

- You also could place something after this slider 00:55:985 (8) - but I'm not too sure about that since a break does emphasize
this a bit better 00:57:390 (1,2) -

...yeah here again 02:01:584 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -

- I think that spinner might be too short 01:07:230 (1) - but then again might be a style thing

Overall

- So since your set has a lot of similarities in their different there isn't as much to point out I think. I would still keep saying that the spread thing would help with name changes and I think I can still make some other recommendations

suggestions

- why didn't you add hitsounds on every Lead sound? 00:30:448 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -

- so since you can't really map irregular rhythm at this difficulty 00:37:945 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
I would actually remove every 2nd circle to still rhythmically emphasize the change in music

here too (duh) 01:46:590 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -

- I think that might be a bit overdone since there is so few strong sounds in there 00:41:693 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -

I think It would work on the higher diff
(it especially doesn't work in conjunction with my suggestion from before)

and it also has no special hitsounds for the more apparent Lead sounds
here too 01:50:338 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -

- same recommendation as in the easy 00:52:939 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - 02:01:584 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -

- I think in this diff the slider works "better" 01:07:230 (1) -

- that works really nicely 01:22:693 (1,2,3) -

Overall

- at this point pretty much anything I'll say will be a really subjective suggestion since the this diff and the next one are quite good at rhythm Emphasis
(the only ting I can point out lol)

Suggestions

- maybe remove this circle 02:01:584 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - to make the change in melody more apparent and emphasize the following notes a bit more.

here maybe too 01:52:447 (3) -

- same as in easy and normal... I should stop pointing that out since it might be wrong anyway
00:52:939 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - 02:01:584 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -

- why is there a note here? 01:16:133 (6) - and here too 01:16:133 (6) -

- again as in the normal maybe reduce the density here 01:46:590 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -

Suggestions

- Why is there a note here 00:07:488 (6) -

- I listend to these on 50% Playback Rate and to me they clearly sound like 1/6 00:14:048 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - and here 01:22:693 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) -

also this is Ctrl + G'd I think 01:23:630 (7,8,9) -

- so this is the hardest diff you are planning to do right? then why didn't you map this full 1/6 00:37:945 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - with one 1/4 gap at the end

here too 01:46:590 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -



- or why didn't you map this 1/6 00:44:036 (4,5,6) - I mean to be fair this in only a "insane" by name, but I would consider it unless someone tells otherwise. your choice in the end