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.

Maybe it depends on whether you plan to use iTunes for distribution or host them yourself. 
 
What I'd do is measure LUFS for some of your favorite podcasts. Start with Sessions With Slau, which would be a good one to emulate sonically. He comes in at -14 LUFS, or perhaps K-14. And quite a bit more dynamic than most podcasts, which typically shoot for a consistent volume as the prime directive (achieved via massive compression). But then Slau is an engineer's engineer with a reputation for audiophile recordings.

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!

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.

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.

Awesome thread, as I've gotten really interested in LUFS lately.  Also Bit, happy to see you started it as I put a lot of confidence in your work and observations.  I've got Adobe CS which includes Audition and I've really enjoyed that program.  I discovered it analyzes LUFS and has a convenient "match to" feature.
 
So I checked out LUFS of a few CD's.  Daft Punk Random Access Memories is around -12, Donald Fagen Nightfly is in the ball park of -19, Bonnie Rait Luck of the Draw is around -16, YouTube I believe is -12 and iTunes is -16.  My mixes directly from Sonar with no "mastering" done in there lands my figure around -23.  I can do a match to -16 and it sounds and looks (the wave) really good, and the mix breathes.  If I match it to -12, it still sounds OK but sounds a little squeezed.
 
It's funny, Audition doesn't show you how much gain reduction is happening during the match too process like a compressor or limiter would...no numbers, meters or anything.  You just give it the match to number and Audition renders it.  At first I didn't like that at all.  After just a little bit of working with it, I now do like it, because the only way I can judge is my ears.  So at this point at least, I hope to get my mixes as good as possible so the only thing they need post mix is appropriate loudness, and right now I'm going for -16 LUFS and calling it a day.
 
It would be so great to get back to just making music and not worry at all about getting my mix loud enough.

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.

I wouldn't worry about Audition not showing gain reduction like a limiter does, because it's much less relevant. I don't know how Audition's match feature works, but my guess is it's working on the long-term LUFS measurement, which means it's doing slow adjustments that don't have the potential for damaging sound the way a limiter can.
 
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. 
 
Another caveat is when matching your levels to commercial recordings, make sure the references you choose are as similar to your own material as possible. Nightfly and Luck of the Draw are very different in terms of style and instrumentation. If the former was brought up to the level of the latter it probably wouldn't sound right, because its greater crest factor would likely mandate additional limiting. 

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.

doncolga
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.

 
Everything on Joe Jackson's Body and Soul album sounds fantastic, it has such a natural open sound and has dynamics in all the right places. I always have to be careful after I've listened to it though because my volume is cranked so high and if I throw on a modern squashed mix after it....ouch. 
 
I'm finding I appreciate dynamics more and more as time goes by. The other day I listened to Katy Lied by Steely Dan and I got such a kick out of the guitar solo in Chained Lightning, when he digs in those notes really pop out and it's just something you rarely hear in modern mixes.