4 ms·

Excellent, I'm happy (and feel validated) that this exists. As this would replace Skype (or whatever conferencing tool you're using), it's not really an additi

• CharlesW 9y ago
  > As this would replace Skype (or whatever conferencing tool you're using), it's not really an additional dependency, is it? It is in the sense that those solutions are not only replacing the realtime part of the call, but additionally must do separate source-quality call recording and post-call file transfer sessions for each participant. I've lost calls (or would have, if I hadn't recorded the realtime part) with more than one of those solutions because of unrecoverable errors on participants' sides. I'm reluctant to name them since (1) they in turn depend on browsers and their WebRTC implementations, and (2) in my experience different podcasters will swear by and swear at the same solution. Here's how I'd order the reliability of common remote recording scenarios, from most to least reliable: (1) Landline-to-landline (2) Landline-to-mobile or mobile-to-mobile (3) SkypeOut-to-landline/mobile (4) VoIP-to-VoIP — Skype, Discord, whatever. (5) Manual multi-ender — Can be done very reliably if remote participants are reasonably comfortable with recording audio. Still requires a POTS, mobile, or VoIP call for the realtime part. (6) Assisted multi-ender solutions — Generally way less reliable than manual multi-enders. In my experience and from talking with other podcasters, expect 1/20 calls to fail.