Jeff Evans
 
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.

 
I just had a listen to some tracks off that and it sounds VERY nice. 

Starise
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.

I like your way of thinking!
 

Excellent discussion and something new for me to pay attention to.
 
I just submitted a song to CD Baby, a 16-bit wave file which I had mastered/exported using SPlat's Pow-r 3 and with peak limiting set to -0.3 db.  Usually I export MP3 files and upload them to SoundCloud, etc.  But, CD Baby wants a wave file which they use to generate MP3s.  During the review, when I had a chance to audition their MP3, I thought it sounded too compressed, too harsh, too...much.  I replaced the original wave file with one that had 1.0 db of headroom.  That MP3 was much closer in overall sound to the wave file I exported from Sonar.
 
One thing I did do was load that 16-bit wave file into O7 and use the Codec Preview for an MP3, just to see if there was any clipping.  There were some overages at around +0.2 or +0.3 - though I'm not sure I'm using the Codec Preview properly on a 16-bit wave file mastered for -0.3 db.  But, I guess the lesson is to leave more headroom and mix and master accordingly.
 
I must admit, I didn't even know what Insight was.
 
The journey continues....

Good stuff Dave!  Got me thinking as I've upgraded to Wavelab 8.5 recently. Will be looking at the LUFS meter more often and trying to come up with "standard" or if my current one okay. 
Been mastering files to RMS -12 (like Batsbrew).  Works fine for my own compositions, but would I'd be interested in "expanding" my understanding of the loudness standards for future clients.

arlen2133
.. but would I'd be interested in "expanding" my understanding of the loudness standards for future clients.

here you go
 
http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html

I've been trying to work out these Luffs meters ever since I got Vegas Pro...  http://productionadvice.co.uk/lufs-dbfs-rms/ I just found this...this guy say's he's happy with for audio mastering 11-12 integrated level...I've just checked my recent masters and apart from an EDM track...all spot on...so as I said in a previous post...using the console emulator and tape emulator VU meters, and aiming for 6 and 12's will get you a 11 or 12 integrated reading.  Just for fun, I ran Bowies Blackstar...but take into account this is an Mp4 for Itunes through the meter and I got 10.
 
Ben 
 
PS For what it's worth, I found soundcloud compressed the EDM track...I could hear it...I was like what is going on here, now I know.  This had an integrated level of 8-9.  Anything on the 11-12 range seemed to be fine.

olemon: make sure you're turning on the "true peak" option in Ozone (it's off by default). That'll at least protect you for CDs if not MP3s. 
 
It doesn't hurt to be more conservative with MP3s. In terms of peak values, in order to absolutely guarantee that it never, ever, ever exceeds 0dB after encoding and playback you'd have to limit peaks to -6 dB! My experience has been that limiting to -1 dB (assuming an oversampled detector such as Ozone's) is an acceptable compromise. That level works Ok for CDs, too. If it's not loud enough listeners will just turn it up.
 
Talking about LUFS, DR, K-whatever.average RMS and peak limiting is kinda meaningless without also taking into account where and how the product will eventually get played back. What works on a CD might be a disaster as an MP3. 
 
What we really should be talking about is dynamic range. If you post a -11 LUFS file to YouTube, they're going to turn it down 5 dB. That will still be acceptable IF the material has a wide-enough dynamic range. If listeners think it's too quiet, they'll just turn it up. But if you had sacrificed dynamic range in order to push your master up to -11 LUFS, it's gonna sound flat and lifeless after you turn it up. 
 
The integrated loudness number is ultimately a crude measurement based on averages. To illustrate the inherent limitation of averaging, consider these (actual) statistics: the average state has 3,760 square miles of permafrost and produces 6,300 tons of pineapples annually. Hitting a given LUFS target does NOT assure that a master isn't under- or over-dynamic.
 

batsbrew

arlen2133
.. but would I'd be interested in "expanding" my understanding of the loudness standards for future clients.

here you go
 
http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html

Thanks Bats...
Saved and bookmarked so I can go over in detail when I get home tonight.

bitflipper
... the EBU Loudness meter from Toneboosters is pretty good, and a cheap alternative to expensive tools like Insight...

Bit, I just picked up the TB loudness meter. Simple, but effective. Thanks for the heads-up. The full 5.1 version works great on stereo. Is there any reason to use the stripped down stereo version?
 
Edit: I'm in the process of putting together a podcast called "Life On Maars". While doing so, I came across a nice set of posts on Podcasting Basics. As I was rereading one just now, I found a link to their post on "The Audio Producer's Guide to Loudness." Good read...and the TB Loudness meter is covered!
 
http://transom.org/2015/t...ers-guide-to-loudness/

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).