OT - I caught this on my cell initially and remember you had Ozone 4, so assumed you upgraded to Ozone 7 Advanced? I skipped 6 due to feedback on the software forum, so would be curious to your take on the dynamic EQ in 7 if you have a moment (I still do not own one, and Ozone 7 would be the most likely source for me).
 
Sorry for the hijack.

Dave if you start out at -20 and hang in at -14 for a while and end up at -12 sounds like it might all come out in the wash. (sounds like a Roy Orbison tune to me!! I only say this because I was in a Roy Orbison tribute band for a while and I could not believe how dynamic that man is)
 
One of the best things you can do is load up something like Steven Wilson and do a measurement over the whole track and see what prevails.
 
You can always do what Ben Folds has done with his new album 'So There' and just master it quiet and not be too worried about it being loud. You just have to turn it up.

That's what I plan to do today, Jeff. As part of my quest to find "my LUFS" I intend to do what I did in the beginning, which is to analyze as many commercial sources as possible, both material I admire and stuff I don't care for. Ultimately, I will probably do as I did the first two times I went through this process and pick my own standard. And as before, that procedure's prime directive won't be "loud". 
 
Yes, Michael, I did go for the recent Ozone Advanced bundle, and am grateful that our favorite software pusher cclarry talked me into it. It's been a game changer.
 
I started out on Ozone 2 way back when, upgraded to 3 and then to 4 but it became obvious that the relative benefit of each upgrade was getting smaller and smaller. By the time Ozone 5 came around, the benefit was so miniscule that it seemed like a horizontal upgrade that served no purpose other than keeping iZotope in the black. So I skipped that rev.
 
But the jump from 4 (or 5) to 7 and from standard to advanced is huge. Whereas IRC3 (introduced in v. 5) didn't seem to add much, the new IRC4 is truly outstanding. The transient booster eliminates the last major advantage Pro-L had over Ozone. Alloy was an unexpected bonus in the bundle, too.
 
The dynamic EQ is very good but I still like MDynamicEQ much better. It's my standard EQ for vocals and bass. On the master bus I only use MSpectralDynamics, but I am starting to use Ozone's multi-band compressor on the Mid channel only, as a widening enhancement. Early experiments have been encouraging.
 
 

bitflipper...
Bat, the EBU Loudness meter from Toneboosters is pretty good, and a cheap alternative to expensive tools like Insight. I only mentioned Insight because I know a lot of folks here got in on the recent sale, so there are a lot more of us now that have it there as an option - and maybe haven't dug into it yet.

Couple of questions.
 
First, and this may be really noob, what, if any, difference is there between LUFS and dBFS?
 
Second, I've heard really good things about Waves Dorroughs meter plugins (current sale price: $119). How would you rate them against Insight (list: $499) and/or the Toneboosters meter plugins (list: €20)?

My sweet spot so far seems to be -11, but I'm firmly in the "rock music" category.
 
You guys have probably seen this already, but I recommend this post:
http://productionadvice.co.uk/online-loudness/
 
Especially this graphic (full version in the link above):

Thanks Dave, I had seen that Ozone 7 had hit the streets but tend to have the software forum hidden so I don't get a sudden case of GAS. This thread did remind me to look at my account and I have a coupon for 7 Advanced (from 5/6 Advanced) in there for $149. I can get two weekends out of a trial if I test it this weekend, and after checking the software forum threads it didn't get the disapproval as 6 did. Your feedback is most appreciated!
 
Again, sorry for the hijack.

Mettelus, I'd urge you to give it a go. Being on a tight budget, I was reluctant to spend the money and was happy with the tools I already had. Buying it meant that I had to further postpone the Ominsphere upgrade I've been looking forward to since February.
 
The improvement brought by Ozone 7 came as a surprise. It's turned out to be the best software purchase all year. I don't even mind that I had to push back Omnisphere until next year.
 
Colin: yeh, I'm starting to see that -16 LUFS may not work for everything. I remastered an old tune yesterday that was rockier and more aggressive, and -16 made it come out sounding limp. I pushed it up to -14 and it was a significant improvement. So as I gradually dial in "my LUFS" it looks like it'll end up being a window rather than a fixed target.
 
That Ian Shepard article was one of my primary references when I started this experiment. But it's hard to correlate pictures of some unknown audio to your own stuff.
 
An interesting experiment would be to take one of your -11 masters and turn the final level down by 5 dB (simulating what YouTube would do to it) and see what you think. Maybe it won't make an appreciable difference, I don't know. I'd love to hear a song posted to YouTube with multiple LUFS values. Theoretically, YouTube's software should assure that the volume remains constant.
 
My guess is that it could have deleterious impact on both heavily-compressed AND highly-dynamic material alike. 
 
John: LUFS differs from straight dB readings in that it's weighted to take into account human perception, which doesn't hear all frequencies equally and doesn't register all volume envelopes equally (e.g. a sustained sound seems louder than a short percussive sound at the same dB level). That's the advantage of LUFS: you're more likely to be comparing apples to apples when A/Bing disparate material.

Oh my. No wonder I am still in the hobbyist category after all these years.... Mindblown...
 
Bit (and everyone else contributing...) great post, again.

Some very interesting read here thanks Bit and the other contributors 

I like using  dynamic EQs to tame  frequencies that tend to be overbearing.  I like the one in Ozone 7 Dave mentioned & Meldas MDynamic EQ. This has helped me to get a low master up a few notches and still keep the dynamics. I start out at lower levels , maybe -6db with the occasional peak. I  stage light compression where I need it in the tracks that need it.  Usually set to a fast attack and a low ratio like 2:1 and a threshold that takes 1 or 2 db off.
 
When  this all hits the master I add  dynamic eq set to reduce offending freqs by around 2db.  I place a  transparent limiter at the end. Those TRacks limiters are great for this.This usually gets  acoustic material up to a decent level but doesn't over do it. I don't try anything too radical with acoustic material. The ceiling doesn't get raised much since I want it to breathe.
 
Nothing I do changes anything by more than a few db here or there . A comparison with K-14 usually confirms that it doesn't peak but still has breathing room. This is usually a low peak RMS reading compared to a lot of other material .. I'm still playing with the formula though. I have found the compression format comparison valuable in Ozone 7 Advanced. I haven't worked with LUFS... another system to learn. Seems like a great way to measure. This is a very general statement but it seems to help me personally.....I want my mixes to be comfortable on my ears at slightly over half volume on most systems, but I want it to be capable of being driven hard and still retain a good sound at loud levels.. Surprisingly this seems to translate pretty well across different systems. If the mix breaks up at 3/4 volume something is wrong. If it can't be heard at low volume, something's wrong.