Well I guess what I mean by a small setup is by saying that everything runs through one reverb through bus send / return (See Christian Kardeis's templates for a good example of this), thus reducing the amount of CPU power needed to create the virtual room. Also by doing this you automatically create homogeny amongst your instruments since their 'in' the same room. Of course this only really helps if you're using just one sample library which has instruments recorded in the same environment.

Of course a convolution reverb will certainly give more realism than an artificial reverb when used correctly. But recently I did a test mix in ProTools using the D-Verb only and found that sound was pretty pleasant to listen to. It wasn't super realistic but it was something that I thought was more than passible as a production sound. I guess what I mean to say is that you don't have to spend hundreds of euros on Altiverb if you don't have that kind of money. There are reverbs that, if used properly, can produce a good sound.

That being said I almost always use either the Vienna Convolution Reverb or Altiverb, but that's more because I've had several years of creating templates designed around these kind of reverbs. But I have also tried using Platinum Verb in Logic, and D-Verb in Pro-Tools to good effect. Yeah I do think you need a convolution reverb to truely give you a realistic space .. but a lot can be made of a decent artificial reverb when used right.

To answer your question on space .. yes this is something that is just extremely difficult to achieve. I have found this best way to give your recordings space is to use a near and far reverb. And to place your instruments at a mid-far distance and have very little up close. In panning you should make sure that no instruments exceed more than 50% of left or right and that you don't use too much limiting for stereo spread ... things like flutes sound far more realistic when they're coming out in full stereo than they do being limited.

I've found that if you want space .. and realism .. then you need to have less dry sound (kinda obvious I know), but you be surprised how many people choose to use a very dry sound claiming that this sounds more real. The problem is that it simply sounds 'close', and if your performances of those instruments is weak, then all the flaws in the performance will show up and highlight the fact that this is a computer based performance. By setting back the instruments you're helping to hide the nature of that performance .. and also you have to remember than when you go to hear a symphony .. you're not there on stage with your ears next to every instrument .. you're sitting back at least 3-10 meters away from the orchestra. Hearing as much of the room tone as you are the orchestra.

Some examples of my own mixes:

Here's an example from my own work from 2008:

02-Carter-vs-Klingon.m4a

In this case I'm using the TODD-AO Ir's in Altiverb. I don't say that this mix is perfect .. but for me it has a sense of good realism and sounds nice an roomy. I used 6 instances of altiverb to do this (Strings: near and far, Woods near and far, Brass near and far) and an overall VSL reverb to achieve a little more distance. The setup is rather complicated to say the least. I think it came out sounding nice and big but there's a certain lack of essence in the decay of the instruments that I could never quite get right.

Now when you compare this to a newer piece that I did:

07_Escape_plan.m4a

This piece only used two reverbs. The main difference is that I had learned how to better sit my instruments in there respective depths and also I've chosen to use a more pleasing IR. The setup for this piece was FAR simpler. Using Pre-fade bus send / return into one reverb and an overall reverb to provide extra space. The main reverb was the TODD-AO IR (Mono to Stereo Wide at 15m70) and the overall reverb was the VSL reverb using ORF Sendensaal MF Warm. The result is not so bad .. again not exactly without it's flaws but a fairly passible imitation of a real orchestra.

So my point is that the smaller mix setup I used turned out to be better, or at least easier to use, than the big setup which required 7 total reverbs .. and frankly was a pain to balance. I will be publishing my 'Osiris' template soon for all to try but I'm still ironing out some of the bugs.

If you really want a big sound then turn down the 'dry sound' and the 'near sound' and bring up the 'far sound' .. though be weary of washing out your instruments. It comes down to what kind of room your looking at performing from. If you want the sound of an opera house then you can feel free to apply a touch more 'far' than 'near' sound because you want the overall sound. If you're trying to do a film score style recording the chances are that you want a little less of the 'far' sound and want to actually balance the orchestra to gain maximum volume from all quarters.

I would dearly like to try MIR as I'm vey intrigued at the possibilities of it. The problem is that I don't have a computer capable of using it, and the Mac Version isn't due for a while yet. Sadly my old clunker of a quad G5 no longer cuts the cheese for a high end computer :sulk:

I think MIR will solve many of the spacial problems involved with mixing virtual orchestra. I'm also interested in the 5.1 surround options though as yet I'm not sure if any of that means much since most of what I monitor with is still stereo. Surround sounds like a good idea but it's only useful if you have a surround system to listen to it on. I don't think there's any spacial listening advantage to mixing in 5.1 if you're only going to output it all to stereo.

I agree with what you say about articulation control. Nothing irritates me more than listening to someone having chosen a sustain patch on a legato line for horns. Nothing sounds more fake than brass when not played correctly. You have to choose your articulations carefully .. if nothing else just listen to them .. if they sound crap then you've got to use something else until they sound right. And velocity control is very important. It's all about creating the performance. If the performance of your virtual instruments isn't there .. then no amount of reverb or mixing will help.

Hi Hetoreyn,

Thank you for sharing you insights and music. I think you have achieved your goal of realistic sound. In a recent post, I asked if adding a mixer to MIR would add anything  useful to MIR in its present form (build 1719)? I am running MIR on a VisionDaw  PC with 32 megs of ram and Dual core Xeon X5560 2.8 GHZ, RME Hammerfall  96/52 audio interface, the samples are spread over four sata drives. This beast is driven by a Mac Pro running Logic 9 and MIDIoverLAN  set up. The PC was built by Mark Nagata at VisionDAW company. I mention this because when I decided to use the MIR software I wanted  a system that would run the software without a lot of glitches. I achieved this goal  with this system.

All of my music is based on an initial improvisation. I set up MIR with the venue, microphone, and place the instruments on the stage. In Logic 9 I chose the instrument set. I the case of  “009 Violin and Woodwind” (http://www.youtube.com/user/Bachbeatty)  I used Solo Violin , Solo Viola,  Solo Cello and various solo woodwinds.  I set the temp at 60 bpm and play the composition start to finish live from a piano keyboard.  The key velocities, that Shawn mentioned , variations in tempo  and other expressive factors happen in the improvisation.  There is no written music or any real  preplanning , sometimes a brief warmup  before beginning. The planning phase is actually the setup of the MIR and Logic 9. Once the sequence is recorded then the editing phase begins.  This includes correcting mistakes, separation of the composition into individual voices,  adding articulation controls, expanding the instrument set based on the composition,  optimizing  the instruments playing range,  adjusting the overall  tempo. The mixing is actually in place as you play the composition in the MIR environment.  The instrument’s sounds reflecting the venue  (hall) chosen,  instruments can be grouped to adjust their overall volume,  character  Pure , Air  etc. , you can insert compression for each instrument (there is no compression in the example  009). In the output channel you can chose a microphone setup  (which you can fiddle with) change the microphone position, set a master EQ, and a Room EQ , this software does everything  except cook supper! I still wonder why VI wants to add a mixer.

I have never thought midi generated music’s goal was to sound like an actual orchestra.  Rather,  I think of the system as a powerful and flexible sound generator  capable of realizing  individual creative  expression. I don’t score the music for an actual orchestra anymore if anything, I would register the midi scores for copyright and if someone wants to  transcribe it into a score there would be enough information to do so. Three months ago I started posting finished music on you tube as underscores to videos that I shot. There has been a modest response but better that any website or audio blog that I have tried in the past.

Not everything you compose is worth keeping and some times I get a composition all the way through the process and then apply the delete key, but that goes with the territory.  Your brain with all its musical neural connections formed over the years is a lot smarter than the conscious “you”. The act of creation  is like diving headfirst into the dark off of the summit of high mountain trusting that you can make the journey skillfully and end successfully.  In other word, trust the brain and ignore the smart kid that everyone thinks is so musically gifted. A lot has changed in this field  since the mid eighty’s when I started to compose music using midi, and it will continue to change so don’t get into cement about anything.  I don’t know if this helps, but it is a snapshot of how I work.

Regards,

Stephen W. Beatty   

@hetoreyn said:

I would dearly like to try MIR as I'm vey intrigued at the possibilities of it. The problem is that I don't have a computer capable of using it, and the Mac Version isn't due for a while yet. Sadly my old clunker of a quad G5 no longer cuts the cheese for a high end computer :sulk:

I think MIR will solve many of the spacial problems involved with mixing virtual orchestra. I'm also interested in the 5.1 surround options though as yet I'm not sure if any of that means much since most of what I monitor with is still stereo. Surround sounds like a good idea but it's only useful if you have a surround system to listen to it on. I don't think there's any spacial listening advantage to mixing in 5.1 if you're only going to output it all to stereo.

Hi Hetoreyn,

Firstly I must say this is a great thread. Thought you should also know that I am a big fan of your VSL podcasts and eagerly await each release!

I am thinking to invest in a convolution reverb soon, though am seriously considering to wait for the Mac release of MIR Pro - the PC version sounds breathtaking and the interface definitely provides a much more musical approach to mixing and using reverb. I am also aware that 3rd party plug-ins are now supported in MIR, which also REALLY appeals to me. My alternatives right now though are:

1) Altiverb - clearly you have vast experience using this with the Vienna Instruments. Is it really worth forking out £400-500 for it? Bare in mind I also use ProjectSam Symphobia, Synthogy Ivory and other VIs, and so want to be able to blend all of them convincingly.

2) Staying put with Space Designer in Logic Pro 9 - would you recommend I hold out until MIR Pro for Mac is released? Another question I have regarding reverb techniques - I currently send all of my orchestral instruments to one reverb output. I am considering grouping sections (ie. Brass, Strings etc.) as am struggling to produce a sufficiently realistic sound in terms of space and depth. I am sure much of this is to do with my lack of technique as opposed to Space Designer's limitations, nonetheless would you recommend doing this?

Your thoughts and the thoughts of others reading this would be highly valued.

Cheers [:)]

This is a really good thread and those are very interesting points about maybe the most important overall subject to make your music sound both realistic and expressive.  i have also had many problems in this area, and was using altiverb mainly though occassionally Lexicon hardware reverb in a rather complicated way.  however, I just started using MIR SE on a not-that-expensive computer (i7 920 with 24 gb ram) and what I am noticing is how it completely changes all of these aspects of the sound, because now the original instruments are placed within an acoustical environment that is completely right for them and based upon orchestral sound instead of generic sound - like Altiverb which is reverb for anything, not purely orchestral instruments.  Also, Altiverb is not a mixing environment, just reverb.  MIR has completely revolutionized my mixing concepts since it blends together all the elements into one environment and really works.  When you can place the instrument in its proper position and image in relation to the others, the other elements of sound - like levels - become so much easier to deal with.  An example of this is on a large mix I am doing now, I placed the pipe organ in the very back of the hall as opposed to the front, and this brought out the brass which were a bit overbalanced in one section - WITH NO ADJUSTMENT OF LEVELS.  In other words the acoustical environment being right actually did the mixing adjustment automatically. This is exactly what would happen in reality if that organ were in the back (as it of course is) - the sound would be less obtrusive and therefore easier to mix with the brass.  Anyway I am noticing how the extreme realism of the overall sound in MIR profoundly affects all the elements of the mix including especially levels.  Also, the levels built into the MIR instrument presets are the basically correct real-world levels which give a good starting point. 

Anyway on the final level of a CD I agree that you should be very conservative with compression when dealing with orchestral/film music.  Hip-hop or other  pop stuff can make everything almost one level, but orchestral has to remain extremely wide.   I did a CD recently in which I basically did a kind of "manual compression" in which  I looked at the loudest tracks and made sure that they were not creating an overall much lower level with a few big peaks that had to be normalized.  Just doing that can often bring the entire level up by seveeral decibels without any artificial compression, and it is completely undetectable musically speaking. 

Hey there,

Altiverb (AV) certainly gives the user many options, such as speaker placement, separate control over reflections, EQ, and all other kinds of fiddly things but I'm not really sure how much of this is useful for realistic mixing, and how much of it is actually getting in the way. These days I tend to use a rather minimal amount of features in AV and I'm getting better .. or rather less frustrated .. results.

The main thing that altiverb has going for it is a huge library of Impulse responses (IR's) .. however other reverbs are catching up with this. VSL have their room packs for the VI reverb and for MIR which offer many new nice room sounds. AV is an awesome reverb for sound engineers who are seeking very specific room sounds like 'a small bathroom', or 'cupboard', IR's .. but in my opinion it is not the only reverb that will offer acceptable sound for virtual orchestra.

Space designer (SD) in Logic will actually offer the same kind of quality as AV. The only thing to get right is to choose the right kind of IR for SD, and there are many on the net that you can pick up for free. all one really has to do is just use the reverb correctly .. meaning that if you assign your instruments to your reverb with a bus send / return configuration, then you will be able to get as much benefit from this as you would with AV. Perhaps the biggest difference is that you won't be likely to get the 'TODD AO' or 'Paramount stage M' IR's for Space designer .. but that doesn't mean that you won't get a good IR out of SD if you look for it.

I'd say it's worth while investing in AV if you have the money as it will give you more choices, and that's never a bad thing. But if your budget is tight and you already have SD then I would say that the SD reverb should suffice and be able to give you a great sound. Beat Kaufmann warned me early on when I asked him about AV that I shouldn't expect it to solve my problems .. and he was totally right. AV seemed like a great choice to begin with .. but I've noticed as time wore on that it was really more bother that it should have been. And If I'd have stuck with SD I would be 500 Euro better off :P

 As for achieving homogeny amongst your different libraries it's difficult to say how this is best done. I use a limited amount of EWQL instruments in my recordings (usually percussive instruments) and I find that using the middle range mic positions and assigning a small amount of reverb to them (the same reverb that it going to the VSL instruments) they tend to sound fine. But if you're using lots of different libraries then yes I can imagine there being depth issues. This is one reason why I prefer to use one library primarily. Again if you use reverb in the Bus send / return config then that gives you a lot of control to be able to use less reverb on the libraries that have more 'native' reverb already included.

All in all I'd say hold out for MIR and for the mean time just try to get the best out of SD. SD is quite capable of giving you a lovely sound .. as with all things it's just a case of learning to manage it and trying to find the best way to use it. MIR will most certainly give you the exact level of control you could possibly ask for .. with much less fuss.

As for the issue of whether or not to use one reverb or to use it in sections. I've tried both ways and one offers more possible control than the other .. but I've found that really both ways will give the same sound ultimately. In Pro-tools 8 I have the sections separated out into 4 groups, mainly so I can avoid overloading the buses and have control over the volumes for the sections .. but often I find that this approach really doesn't help improve the depth or sound of the reverb. In logic I've used just one bus reverb (and one on the main output), with the right kind of attention to the bus sends this really gives me all the control I need to adjust depth. Really I think it's all down to what IR you're using and how much closeness or depth you're using on your instrument.

 I think one thing worth noting about MIR as opposed to Altiverb, SD, etc. is that all those others are generic reverbs - they are for sound effects and dialogue in movies as much as for music. 

However, MIR is specifically for orchestral music in a concert hall (or stage).  This is what is making a huge difference for me since I do not have to do tricks to try and coax perfection out of generic reverbs and mixing the way I used to (try).  MIR automatically creates a nearly perfect orchestral placement, depth, level and reverb.   Also, whereas Altiverb gives you on any given impulse set about four different actual sampled player positions at most (on the Todd AO) MIR has dozens, front to back, side to side, directional.  It is a quantum leap over all the others because of the amount of sampling that went into it as well as the interface which is designed for musicians. 

Dear All,

I agree with William on MIR - it is a milestone change to workflow, and an astonishing leap forward.  Between MIR and Lexicon PCM Native Reverbs (to add a sheen in the same manner as a mastering reverb), I've just about stopped worrying about reverb, except to decide how much I want.

However, I just wanted to add something to this discussion about a subject that does not yet appear to have been mentioned in too much depth, but in my opinion has probably the greatest contribution to creating a realistic sound with sampled instruments.  Orchestration.

I know this thread is mainly about mastering and reverb, but writing piccolo lines that sound piccolo-y, violin lines that are violin-y and horn lines that.. well ... you know what I mean, and thinking about ensemble, impact, what part of an instrument's range will truly sing, cut through or support the texture are surely the most important decisions aside from composition.

This is not to say that the tools (e.g. VSL) should not be used in an orchestrally counter-intuitive or experimental way (for example, see Ionisation by Varese) - very interesting effects can be achieved by programming impossible or non-idiomatic lines.

However, if you are seeking to produce the most realistic orchestral sound using sampled instruments, before you worry about continuous controllers, velocity, reverb or anything else, take a good look at your orchestration, and listen to it.  No amount of reverb or compression will mask errors in this.

Kind Regards,

Nick.

 That's absolutely true and I've personally experienced trying to make mistakes in orchestration sound good and nothing could do it.   Hetereyn does some excellent orchestration in his music though and what he has described is what I have been concerned about also.  Especially since I am also doing CDs and so need to make sure the overall loudness is right.    But MIR is a tremendous step forward in the overall sound, depth and placement and what I have noticed is that when those things are right you can get the others right so much more easily.

Just to clarify - my previous message was not intended as a comment in any way specifically upon Hetoreyn's orchestration, which I happen to think is very effective.  It was a much more general comment.

Suon, that is a great post and very good information!  I agree with that and would add that specifically I have found the EQ is essential in the following cases (and wonder if anyone else thinks this) -

Certain low instruments such as contrabassoon, bassoon, cellos, tam-tams and the low range  of the harp MUST be EQ'd because you are hearing bass frequencies that are the result of close miked sampling sessions that you would NEVER hear in a real concert hall.  I have noticed this especially with the harp, cellos and tam-tam recordings which have far more bass when heard up close than they do when placed into an orchestra setting. So to use those without EQ sounds very weird. 

I have noticed that with MIR the violins when using the "warm" setting do NOT have to be EQ'd down any more in high frequency. It is a perfect EQ for them. I always used to worry about the excessive high freq which seems to occur no matter how good the samples.  But in MIR this is no longer a problem.  Also, the MIR setting of "bite" is really a great EQ for bringing out a low bass like the contrabassoon. 

I agree on the use of manual envelopes, and this brings up the concept of doing various things in the mixing that actually are mastering techniques, but better accomplished early when still mixing.  For example, if your levels are carefully monitored on very loud instruments like brass/percussion during the mix, you can avoid having to take the entire mix down artificially at the time of mastering.  That is similar to your point about the instrumentation, and actually very much like what a conductor would do in  telling percussion for example to not make an ff quite so loud, etc.

@hetoreyn said:

Now when you compare this to a newer piece that I did:

07_Escape_plan.m4a

This piece only used two reverbs. The main difference is that I had learned how to better sit my instruments in there respective depths and also I've chosen to use a more pleasing IR. The setup for this piece was FAR simpler. Using Pre-fade bus send / return into one reverb and an overall reverb to provide extra space. The main reverb was the TODD-AO IR (Mono to Stereo Wide at 15m70) and the overall reverb was the VSL reverb using ORF Sendensaal MF Warm. The result is not so bad .. again not exactly without it's flaws but a fairly passible imitation of a real orchestra.

So my point is that the smaller mix setup I used turned out to be better, or at least easier to use, than the big setup which required 7 total reverbs .. and frankly was a pain to balance. I will be publishing my 'Osiris' template soon for all to try but I'm still ironing out some of the bugs.

If you really want a big sound then turn down the 'dry sound' and the 'near sound' and bring up the 'far sound' .. though be weary of washing out your instruments. It comes down to what kind of room your looking at performing from. If you want the sound of an opera house then you can feel free to apply a touch more 'far' than 'near' sound because you want the overall sound. If you're trying to do a film score style recording the chances are that you want a little less of the 'far' sound and want to actually balance the orchestra to gain maximum volume from all quarters.

Hi Hetoreyn,

Thanks for your reply. I am currently in the process of setting up a new template with Vienna Ensemble (the free version) in Logic Pro. I have 4 instances of this (one for Woodwinds, Brass, Percussion & Strings). I have set up Aux tracks for each of the 16 MIDI multi-timbral channels (with the exception of MIDI channel 1, as the main MIDI channel will be used for automation within Logic, with the other 15 Aux tracks set up for automation..does this make sense? Is it even worth setting up Aux's for automation or do you just adjust levels in Vienna Ensemble?)...

Looks like I am going to try to set up 2 reverbs...one main reverb then one on the master output. Now some questions...

1) You mentioned that you set up a pre-fade bus send / return on each of your tracks...why pre and not post?? Could you explain the difference between the two as this is a concept I have never really managed to grasp.

2) What is the point in setting up another reverb on the master output? Won't it mudden the sound? Does it make sense to double the reverb on the master output with the same IR? I found a custom-made Todd AO IR for Space Designer so will experiment using this on both reverbs for the time being.

3) How does one go about sitting the instruments in their appropriate depths? Has this got something to do with using pre-fade sends and adjusting the wet/dry mix using the channel faders in Logic's mixer? [:S]

Cheers

Hey,

To answer your first question. The whole thing of Pre or Post fade is a bit odd to explain but i'll try:

Essentially using the pre fade mode turns the fader into a wet / dry controller .. where the louder you have it .. the more 'dry' signal there is .. so things sound closer. If you have it low then things sound further away (Of course you have to be running a reverb on the bus send in order to hear this depth change!). So there it is .. your channel fader only manipulates the volume of the dry (unaffected) signal.

The volume of your reverb is of course controlled by the bus send.

Now if you decide to use 'post' fade then your channel strip fader is again an overall volume control for the entire signal because everything is going through it. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.

Post fade allows easy manipulation of channel volume but if you want to create different layers of depth then you'll probably have to use more than one reverb.

Pre fade allows greater amounts of depth to be achieved easily with just one reverb for the entire session. However if you want to change instrument volume then you have to manipulate that separately. Personally I find that I use the expression control and Velocity control so much that this is never a problem for me.

I guess it comes down to which method suits you personally best. Try both and see which one you find easier to work with .. and most importantly .. which one sounds best for you.

The reverb on the master is my preference for an added sense of depth. It's not necessary but I do find that just the one reverb can still end up sounding a little flat sometimes.

For a practical demo on using the pre-fade method .. go to the VSL Special Edition tutorial vids .. and check out christian Kardeis and Paul Steinbauers vids on mixing with the VSL SE .. this will explain the routing and everything you need to know .. there are also templates you can download. 

I mut admit that I'm looking forward to using MIR in the near future as it seems this will surely settle many little annoying problems for reverb and compression.

Hey, A composer friend sent me P's "seeking better ways to mix and to achieve a realistic recording from virtual instruments." Things are a bit slow so here goes.

I'll try to stick to the synths. (Samples or Virtual sound sources) Compression and Loudness are easy to hear but difficult to adjust because there are so many options. First remember that compression is multiplicative. Not sure of that word, but if you compress in your mix at 4 to 1 and apply more compression in mastering at say 6 to 1. Your signal will sit at 24 to 1 not 10 to 1. Ok for "Twisted Sister", but kinda rough for Carmina Burana.

Master for the delivery format. Sounding good in somebody's car is very different than blending into a film or supporting a video game. Learn from my friends Fetcher and Munson and their loudness curves. I've used Ozone 3 and 4 and many of the "...izer, ...ator, family of do it yourself mastering tools, a lot can be achieved using only a little multi-band compression and EQ, but there's no one stop setting, and again all those settings. It is supposed to be about the music.

If you've got the gig, make it sound right for the gig, and juice it up for the demo CD/reel later. If it really matters get it mastered by someone who does that for a living. It's an art! There are some books which explain the art of mixing, many of which are a bit esoteric, but the physics of what goes on in the audio path, though permanently altered by Digital storage, are basic.

I'm fond of a book called "Mixing With Your Mind". Lots of Rock and Roll experience, many practical tips. There's an excellent section on setting a compressor. Samples are only as good as the musician, the instrument and the recording.

I'm not a programmer and I don't spend time searching out the libraries. Everyone that I've worked for collects and mixes samples like and alchemist. Next they have learned to write for the ensemble. Sampled or live, if it's orchestral, ethnic, whatever, choose lines which the instrument can play well.

As far as re-verb goes, be flexible. If the samples you use sound like their in the back of the room or hall, adding reverb won't necessarily improve the sound. Reverb is the glue. Far away things don't(naturally) sound loud. Dryer/closer sounds seem louder or bigger. Tempo has a huge effect on reverb. Shorter decay times are less muddy for faster tempos.

Dry orchestral samples can be made to sound better by using a short or long version of the same reverb. Depending on the instrument and the desired placement. D-Verb, Ativerb, Lexicon, Plugins..all Cool. If your computer can handle it.

Good quality hardware reverbs (Best!!) have the same processing power of a 8 Quad Mac. If it's important and your computer is maxed out...Rent.

Improvements are incremental, but it starts with the ensemble palette and the construction of the music. Don't suffer alone. Hire somebody to help you set up your studio or your mix palette. Sure as a Mixer I'd love to be spend a week on your score and suck up your whole budget. P talks about sitting next to a scoring engineer and learning. If you spent x$$$$ going to school to learn more about writing music, what's to stop you from getting help with your mix. Get somebody in for half a day and change your sound. Mixers need and get gigs based on their relationships with composers. Helping out the young guys/girls is in everyone's interest. -

JV

I can't give you strong advice about mastering .But if you have some questions 

about sampling you can ask me. 

I am making an ambient music for along time and can sharing

some sample packages which i sometimes used in my projects.

1.https://www.lucidsamples.com/ambient-samples-packs/269-era-of-space-sounds.html

2.https://www.lucidsamples.com/sound-effects-packs/246-frose-synth-spaces-vol-1.html

 😴