bitflipper
That's the next category we sorely need loudness standards for: podcasts. Even some of the audio-related podcasts I listen to are mastered LOUD.
 
I find it ironic that so many audio-centric podcasts have embarrassingly horrid audio quality. I could forgive a podcast about cats for being noisy and distorted, but when the topic is audio?
 
Why use the stereo version rather than the surround? I can think of two reasons. First, the UI will be less cluttered. Second, it's possible the meters could get confused by stereo input (iZotope Insight assumes Left-Center-Right by default, which screws up the balance meter because it's looking for a nonexistent center channel).

I knew there was a meaningful answer to that question. Thanks for taking the time. I would not have considered, much less thought of, the impact of a phantom center channel.
 
Stereo for stereo. Surround for surround.
 
Even an old fart like me can remember THAT simple rule.
 
From the article I linked to above:
 
[font="'helvetica neue', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 1.8"]Remember This
 
If you remember one thing after reading this article, it should be this: mix voices to -24 LUFS on the Short Term meter. I specify voice because that is the common denominator in the majority of public radio-esque programming. It will help with consistency from one program to another if you target voices to the same place. Remember this, use good production practices, and rely on your ears. Keep the voices at -24 LUFS and the rest of the audio in your piece like music, ambi, and sound effects will fall in line around them.
 
A bonus: the target of -24 LUFS gives quite a bit of space between the typical speaking level and the maximum level where audio will clip (also called “head room”), so peaks aren’t too much of an issue. That said, you still need to manage your peaks, you can’t just ignore them, because clipping (red lights on peak meters) can cause audible distortion. Volume automation or use of a limiter are often great ways to solve this problem. The easiest way is to follow the PRSS standard and aim to keep peaks at or below -3 dBFS.
 
A couple of things re the comments above:
 
I've seen a number of references to -23 LUFS for podcasts (I think that's the level iTunes normalizes to, but I could be way wrong on that). I need to go back and research that to confirm, but the -24 LUFS standard is for broadcast. I think I'll be better off with my podcasts to mix to -23 LUFS, if that is, indeed, what the hosting platform(s) normalize to.
 
It was the mention of "volume automation" in the comments above that caused me to log into my HoRNet account and check on the current version of AutoGain Pro (still on v1.2.1). While there, I noticed that he's running his 40% sale (through today, 16 December). So? I picked up Sybilla Pro v1.1.0 for $14.28. I have 2 other deessers, but neither is anything like Sybilla Pro's 8 tunable/deactivateable filters driving the dual-mode compressor. Couldn't pass it up.

Sub'd! Thanks for the tip.
 
I'm going to host myself. I have the website up (WordPress, Thesis framework running the Effectus skin, Blubrry WordPress plugin; thank Gaia for good ol' Lorem Ipsum!), and plan to use Blubrry's CDN to host through my domain.
 
That said, I want to start with Episode 1 being up to standards AND snuff! I really appreciate having a good example to use for target practice! Thanks again!

bitflipper
In that case, I'd think that going for a little louder standard might be the way to try initially.
 
I've got hundreds of podcasts on my little pocket player that I listen to when I walk. Send me a sample and I'll copy it there and see how it subjectively compares to others, including testing on the mid-priced earbuds I use for my walks. Steady volume is important because listeners will often be in their cars or on a bus, or out jogging. Most don't listen in their studios on reference monitors.

Thanks. When I "get 'er done," I'll take you up on that offer.

I find that by working in the K System K-14 world of rms readings and the track is consistent all the way along, it gives you a perfect -16 LUFS reading.  K system and LUFS are compatible and work well together.

Great advice guys, much appreciated.  I've just finished playing around with it some more this evening.  Hopefully I'm not tricking myself, but there is more punch in the quieter songs when they're level matched by ear.  Side by side of a Daft Punk tune (which I absolutely love by the way) and Bonnie Rait's "You're Not the Only One" like I mentioned earlier.  They both sound amazing of course, but to me the latter sounds more open when it's level matched...it pops more.  Same for Joe Jackson "Can't Get What You Want" which was -20 LUFS and Aaron Neville "Somewhere Somebody" (-18 LUFS I believe).  The Aaron Neville tune is just gorgeous and near the end when there's a break parts and the toms really hit...they really really hit.  It's like there's just not space for that when the mixes are so loud already.  When they're level matched...just WOW  Same for a mix I've just done of another artist's tracks...I put them at -16 and I'm really happy with it, especially level matched comparisons.  I don't have the project in front of me, but there's only some EQ on the mix bus.  No compression at all.  I've done it squeezed and not, and the not squeezed does sound better.  I really think lots of people are just not aware and missing out.  Bottom line I guess...I like what I hear.  I'm chalking this up as progress.

bitflipper
To do the same thing manually you'd simply apply a constant gain adjustment that allows your song to meet your target LUFs measurement. This would not alter the sound in any way other than making it quieter (or louder). There'd be no loss of dynamics, no truncated peaks.
 
BTW, since I started this thread, like Jeff I've mostly reverted to the good ol' K-14 standard. The LUFs meter is still useful because it presents a visual for long-term levels, which K-metering does not do for you. But for music not intended for broadcast there is really no need to get hung up on LUFs. 

I've got the Meterplugs K Meter, and I just discovered there's K metering in Ozone 6, so I'm going to give this a try at K14.  I actually used to put the K Meter on the end of the mix bus for K14, but I wasn't properly referencing commercial mixes by not turning them down to level match to my mix, and I think this is huge.  I believe it clouded EQ decisions, especially on the mix bus.  The relative loudness made me think the references were way better, which they probably are, but to my ears, mine compare well when the references are turned down.  I noticed last evening a mix I'd done recently was muddier/darker when reference mixes were level matched to it, and I'd not noticed this before.  I applied only EQ on the mix bus to correct it and rendered it out at -16 LUFS.  This morning on my office computer it compared beautifully, very clear and airy, not squashed at all...really happy with how sounded.  How cool it would be to land in the K14 ballpark without knocking much, if anything, off the top.