ChatGPT answers, unedited

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d use Zencastr or Riverside rather than Zoom/Teams.

My pick: Zencastr

zencastr.com is particularly well matched to your requirements:

• Separate tracks: each participant gets their own audio/video file, which makes editing and fixing individual voices much easier. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr
• Up to six participants: Zencastr explicitly supports recording separate tracks for six participants, and paid plans support even more. Zencastr
• Connection drops don't ruin the recording: it records locally on each participant's device and progressively uploads the files. A temporary internet problem therefore shouldn't introduce the usual compressed/glitched audio into the recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr
• Good recovery behavior: if someone disconnects and rejoins, current Zencastr recordings maintain a single participant track and insert silence/black frames for the period they were offline, making synchronization much easier. Zencastr Help Center
• Guests don't need accounts: they can join through a recording link. Zencastr

One important operational rule: don't let people close the recording page immediately after the interview. Zencastr needs to finish uploading their locally recorded files; leaving before that can cause an unfinalized track. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

Riverside is the other strong choice

riverside.fm is probably the better choice if you're doing video-first interviews and want a more polished all-in-one recording/editing workflow. Current comparisons put Riverside and Zencastr among the strongest options for remote recording. Riverside ThePod

What I'd choose

For your specific requirement, I'd start with Zencastr. The combination of local recording, individual tracks, six-person support, and graceful handling of participants dropping offline is exactly what you want.

If you tell me whether this is audio-only or video + audio, and whether the six callers are all remote, I can narrow it down further—including which plan you actually need.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d use riverside.fm.

Why it fits your requirements:

• Individual tracks: Riverside records each participant locally and gives you separate audio/video tracks, rather than relying on the quality of the live call. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center
• Connection drops are much less damaging: Each person’s recording is captured on their own device and progressively uploaded. A flaky connection can disrupt the conversation, but it shouldn't ruin the underlying recording. Riverside also retains cloud recordings as a fallback. Riverside Riverside Help Center
• Six callers is comfortably within its capacity: Riverside currently supports up to eight guests in a studio. Riverside
• Good podcast-quality audio: It supports up to 48 kHz audio and separate WAV tracks. Riverside
• Easy for guests: They can join through a browser link without installing a traditional conferencing app. Riverside

Runner-up: SquadCast

squadcast.fm is also a strong choice. It records participants locally into separate tracks and automatically uploads them to the cloud; it supports up to 10 people total (host + 9 guests). SquadCast

I'd choose Riverside if you want the simplest overall experience, especially if you're recording video as well. I'd consider SquadCast/Descript if your editing workflow is already centered around Descript.

Bottom line: For six-person remote interviews where separate tracks + resilience to connection problems are the priorities, Riverside is my first choice.

For a remote interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d use zencastr.com.

Why Zencastr fits your requirements

• Individual tracks: Each participant gets their own audio track, rather than everyone being baked into one mixed recording. Paid plans can provide 16-bit/48 kHz WAV files. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center
• Handles connection drops well: The audio is recorded locally on each participant's computer, rather than recording the internet call itself. Zencastr progressively uploads those recordings in the background, so a temporary connection problem doesn't ruin the local recording. Zencastr Help Center
• Graceful reconnection: Since September 2024, Zencastr creates a single track per participant even when they're temporarily offline, inserting silence during the outage. That makes post-production synchronization substantially cleaner. Zencastr Help Center
• Six people is comfortably within its capacity: Zencastr currently supports up to 12 total participants, and its editing system can process six participants at a time. Zencastr Zencastr Help Center
• Low guest friction: Guests can join from a browser using a link and don't need a Zencastr account. Zencastr

My recommended setup

For a six-person interview, I'd configure it as:

Zencastr → Record Audio (and Video if needed) → separate WAV tracks → edit in your DAW/NLE.

Have everyone join before hitting record, and after stopping, make every participant keep the recording page open until Zencastr confirms their files have finished uploading. That's important because the local recordings still need to upload after the session. Zencastr Help Center

If you're choosing between Zencastr, Riverside, SquadCast, etc., I'd put Zencastr at the top specifically because your two priorities are separate tracks + resilience to connection drops. If you tell me whether you need audio only or video too, I can also give you a short 3-option comparison, including pricing and which one I'd pick for a six-caller show.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d shortlist these:

My recommendation: Riverside

For your specific requirement, Riverside is probably the easiest choice. It records each participant locally rather than simply recording the internet call, so a momentary connection problem doesn't degrade the master audio. It also continuously uploads recordings in the background, and supports up to 10 participants total on separate tracks. riverside.com

That means with six callers, you'd get six clean, independently editable tracks rather than one mixed recording. Guests can also join through a link without creating an account or installing software. riverside.com

The important distinction

Don't use ordinary Zoom/Meet-style recording as your master. You want this architecture:

Guest microphone → local recording → progressive/background upload → cloud master

rather than:

Guest microphone → internet → compressed call → recording

The former means a Wi-Fi hiccup can interrupt the conversation but doesn't necessarily ruin the audio that was already captured. That's the key feature you're looking for. www.descript.com

SquadCast is particularly strong here: its Progressive Uploads system continuously saves chunks to the cloud, while local recordings preserve the high-quality source. It also has a mechanism to continue a session after a device/network problem. squadcast.fm

Zencastr is another excellent choice. It records each participant locally and keeps the recording safe even when someone disconnects; paid plans support up to 12 people total. support.zencastr.com

If this were my production setup

I'd choose:

Riverside → 6 isolated WAV tracks → edit/mix in your DAW.

If connection resilience is more important than everything else, I'd seriously consider SquadCast instead.

If you tell me whether this is audio-only or audio + video, and whether the six callers are six guests plus a host or six people total, I can narrow it to the best plan/software and explain the workflow.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d use a remote podcast recording platform that does local recording + separate tracks. That combination is what protects you when someone’s Wi-Fi drops: the live call may glitch, but the guest’s locally captured audio is still available. airtape.co

My shortlist:

My recommendation for your specific case

For six-person interview episodes, I’d choose:

1. Riverside — if you want the safest all-around production workflow.

• Separate track for every caller
• Local capture so connection drops don’t ruin the recording
• Browser-based guest joining
• Good for video podcasts too

riverside.fm

2. Zencastr — if you are audio-only and want fewer production features.
violetrecording.com

Setup practices I’d use regardless of platform

• Require every caller to use headphones (prevents echo).
• Have everyone join 10 minutes early for mic checks.
• Record a local backup on the host side (for example, your own DAW or recorder).
• Avoid relying on Zoom/Meet as the master recording; they are built for calls, not studio-quality isolated tracks. homehustlehub.com
• Make sure guests have enough disk space because local recording platforms often capture locally before uploading. airtape.coriverside.fm

If this is a weekly show with six rotating guests, I’d lean Riverside. If it is audio-only and you hand files to an editor, I’d compare Riverside vs. Zencastr.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d choose Riverside.

Why Riverside is the best fit:

• Individual tracks: each participant gets a separate high-quality audio track (and video if needed), rather than one mixed recording. riverside.fm
• Connection-drop resilience: Riverside records locally on each participant's device and progressively uploads the recording. A guest's unstable internet connection therefore doesn't degrade the locally recorded master. riverside.fm
• Six callers is comfortably within its capacity: Riverside currently supports up to 10 participants in a recording session. riverside.fm
• Guest experience is simple: guests can join via a link without creating an account or installing software. riverside.fm

Runner-up: Zencastr

Zencastr is also a very strong option. It records each participant locally, keeps local backups, and progressively uploads files, so it has essentially the same important protection against connection problems. It supports substantially more than six guests. support.zencastr.com

The distinction I'd make is Riverside for the smoother all-around interview workflow; Zencastr if you're especially focused on audio/podcast production and want another robust local-recording option.

One important operational tip: regardless of platform, have everyone use headphones and do a 30–60 second test recording before the actual interview. Also make guests keep the recording window open until their uploads are confirmed. support.riverside.fm

Riverside
Zencastr

For a remote interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d choose Riverside.

Why Riverside is the best fit

• Individual tracks: Each participant gets a separate high-quality audio track (and separate video track if you're recording video), rather than a single mixed recording. Riverside records locally on each participant's device. riverside.fm
• Connection drops are handled well: The recording continues locally even if someone's internet becomes unstable or drops. Riverside progressively uploads the recording to the cloud as the session proceeds. riverside.fmriverside.fm
• Six callers is comfortably within its capacity: Riverside currently advertises recording with up to eight participants for its podcast workflow. riverside.fmriverside.fm
• Good audio: You can get separate, uncompressed 48 kHz WAV tracks, which is what you want if you're going to mix/edit the podcast afterward. riverside.fmriverside.fm
• Browser-based: Guests can generally join from a link rather than installing a complicated recording setup.

My ranking

SquadCast is probably the closest alternative. Its Progressive Uploads system records participants separately and preserves recordings through disconnections; it also lets participants rejoin the same session after a network interruption. squadcast.fm

Zencastr is another very good option: it records locally, keeps local browser backups, and provides separate files for each participant, specifically protecting recordings when someone loses their connection. support.zencastr.com

Bottom line: For your use case, I'd go Riverside first, SquadCast second. The key feature to prioritize isn't merely "separate tracks"—it's local recording + progressive/background uploading, because that's what protects the interview when a caller's connection drops.

If this is audio-only and you don't need video, I can also compare the best audio-focused options on price, track quality, caller limits, and recovery from disconnects.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d use Zencastr.

Why it fits your requirements particularly well:

• Individual tracks: Each participant gets a separate audio track, with WAV available on paid plans. support.zencastr.com
• Connection-drop resilience: Recording happens locally on each participant’s computer, rather than recording the internet call itself. If someone's connection glitches, the locally recorded audio isn't degraded. Files are progressively uploaded to the cloud. support.zencastr.comzencastr.com
• Graceful rejoining: If someone drops offline and reconnects, Zencastr now creates a single continuous participant track, inserting silence for the period they were offline. That makes post-production much cleaner. support.zencastr.comzencastr.com
• Six callers is comfortably within its limits: Paid plans support up to 11 guests plus the host (12 total). support.zencastr.comzencastr.com
• Easy for guests: Guests can join via a link without creating a Zencastr account. support.zencastr.comzencastr.com

Runner-up: SquadCast / Descript

Descript's SquadCast is also a strong option. It records each participant as a separate file and supports lossless WAV recording. help.descript.com I'd favor it if you also want to do substantial editing in Descript afterward.

My pick

For a six-person show where the biggest concern is “don't lose the interview if somebody's Wi-Fi goes bad,” I'd choose Zencastr. Its local/progressive recording architecture and single-track handling after reconnections are exactly what you want. support.zencastr.comzencastr.com

One operational recommendation: have every participant use headphones and stay on the recording page until their files finish uploading at the end. Zencastr specifically recommends waiting for uploads to complete. support.zencastr.com

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d choose Riverside as the default.

My ranking

Why Riverside: Each participant is recorded locally on their own device rather than relying on the internet connection for the master recording. It then continuously uploads the files in the background. Riverside says it can record up to 10 participants total, so six callers is comfortably within its capacity. It also gives you an individual audio/video track for each participant. riverside.fm

That distinction is important: if someone's Wi-Fi briefly drops, the conversation may glitch, but the locally captured recording doesn't inherit that glitch. Riverside also says recordings remain safe through browser crashes because of the local recording/upload architecture. riverside.fm

Riverside

Zencastr is the strongest alternative

I'd pick Zencastr if this is primarily an audio podcast and you don't need Riverside's broader video/production ecosystem. It records each participant locally, progressively uploads the files, and maintains local/cloud backups. It currently supports up to 11 guests, so six callers is no problem. zencastr.com

Zencastr

One important caveat

For six callers, I'd strongly prefer a platform designed around local recording rather than simply recording a Zoom/Teams call. You want six independent master tracks, so if Caller 4 has background noise, distortion, or talks over someone, you can fix that person's track without damaging everybody else's audio.

Bottom line:

• Best overall: Riverside
• Best audio-focused alternative: Zencastr
• If you're already heavily invested in Descript: consider its remote recording workflow
• Avoid using ordinary video-conferencing recording as your master if production quality matters.

If you tell me whether this is audio-only or video + audio, and roughly how long each episode is, I can narrow it down to the best plan/tier as well.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d choose Riverside.

Riverside is particularly well suited to your two requirements:

• Individual tracks: Each participant gets their own locally recorded audio/video track, rather than everyone being baked into one mixed recording. Riverside supports uncompressed 48 kHz WAV audio tracks. support.riverside.fm
• Connection drops: The important part is that recording happens on each participant's device, while files are progressively uploaded to the cloud. So a weak or temporarily lost internet connection doesn't ruin the master recording. Riverside specifically says guests continue recording if the host disconnects. riverside.fm
• Six callers is no problem: Riverside supports substantially more than six participants. riverside.fm
• Easy for guests: Guests can join through a link without creating an account or installing software. riverside.fm

The other one I'd seriously consider

SquadCast is the closest alternative if connection resilience is your absolute #1 priority. Its Progressive Uploads system records participants separately and uploads progressively; it also lets a participant rejoin the same session after a disconnection and continue recording. squadcast.fm

SquadCast

My pick

I'd go with Riverside unless your production team already lives in Descript, in which case SquadCast becomes particularly attractive. The combination of local recording + progressive upload is exactly what you want for a six-person remote interview: the call can briefly fall apart without destroying the underlying recordings. riverside.fm

One caveat: connection resilience doesn't mean the conversation itself continues normally during a total disconnect. Participants may temporarily lose the ability to hear each other; what you gain is that their local recordings remain intact.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d use Riverside as the default choice.

My ranking

Why Riverside: it records each participant locally on their own device and uploads the files continuously. So if someone's Wi-Fi briefly drops, the high-quality recording doesn't turn into a garbled/dropout-ridden recording. Riverside supports up to 10 participants and provides separate high-quality tracks. riverside.fm

Riverside

Zencastr is an excellent second choice. It similarly records each participant locally, progressively uploads the recording, and keeps local backups. Its paid plans support up to 12 people total, so six callers is comfortably within its limits. support.zencastr.com

Zencastr

One important distinction

No platform can make a live conversation continue normally if someone's internet completely disappears—their audio/video connection will still drop. What local-recording platforms do is protect the recorded file: the participant's microphone keeps recording locally, so when they reconnect you don't have a hole or degraded audio in their master track. Zencastr explicitly documents this behavior, and Riverside uses the same basic architecture. support.zencastr.com

For your use case: Riverside. If this is primarily audio and you want to minimize cost, I'd seriously consider Zencastr instead.

For a podcast with up to six callers, I’d shortlist Riverside and Zencastr, with Riverside as my default choice.

🥇 My pick: Riverside

Riverside records each participant locally on their own device, then uploads the files in the background. So if someone's Wi-Fi gets choppy, the recording itself doesn't inherit the choppy connection. It also supports up to 10 participants total, comfortably covering your host + five callers. riverside.fm

The important part for your use case is resilience: Riverside says it can withstand browser crashes because the recording is local, and each participant gets an individual high-quality track. riverside.fm

🥈 Zencastr is an excellent alternative

Zencastr has essentially the same architecture: each participant is recorded locally, with the files progressively uploaded to the cloud. It explicitly preserves the recording quality through internet drops/disconnections and provides separate tracks. support.zencastr.com

A particularly nice feature for your scenario: if someone goes offline during a recording, Zencastr now keeps a single track for that participant, inserting silence during the offline period rather than creating a mess of separate files. That makes editing after a connection drop much easier. support.zencastr.com

What I'd use

If this is a serious interview podcast: Riverside.
If it's primarily audio and you want a simpler podcast-oriented setup: Zencastr.

I would not use Zoom/Teams as the primary recording system if individual, high-quality tracks and graceful connection recovery are priorities. Their recording is fundamentally tied more closely to the internet call, whereas these dedicated podcast platforms record locally.

One operational rule matters whichever you choose: have every caller keep the recording page/app open until their upload is confirmed after the interview. Local recording protects the audio during a connection problem, but the file still needs to finish uploading afterward. support.zencastr.com

If you tell me audio-only vs. video podcast, your budget, and whether callers are likely to be nontechnical, I can narrow this to the best specific plan.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d shortlist these three:

🥇 My pick: Riverside

Riverside is probably the easiest fit for your use case. Each participant is recorded locally on their own device, rather than simply recording the internet call, and the files are uploaded progressively while you record. That means a guest's connection can briefly drop without ruining the underlying high-quality recording. Riverside says it can record up to 10 guests plus the host on separate tracks. riverside.fm

That's particularly important with six callers: you don't want one person's flaky Wi-Fi to contaminate everybody's recording.

🥈 SquadCast

SquadCast is arguably the strongest alternative if recording reliability is your #1 concern. Its Progressive Uploads system continuously saves recordings to the cloud, while each participant is recorded locally on a separate track. It also supports up to 10 people total (host + 9 guests). squadcast.fm

One particularly nice recovery feature: if someone gets disconnected, SquadCast says they can rejoin the same session and continue recording. squadcast.fm

🥉 Zencastr

Zencastr is also a very good choice, especially if this is primarily an audio podcast. It records each participant locally and progressively uploads the files, so an internet dropout doesn't inherently degrade the recorded track. Paid plans support up to 11 guests (12 people total). support.zencastr.com

What I'd choose

Riverside if you want the best all-around experience, particularly if you're doing video as well as audio.

SquadCast if your overriding requirement is “I absolutely cannot lose a recording if somebody's connection dies.”

Zencastr if it's primarily an audio podcast and you want a straightforward remote-recording workflow.

I would not use Zoom as the primary recorder for this setup. Its normal cloud/meeting recording approach isn't equivalent to having a pristine locally recorded track for every caller; the dedicated podcast platforms are specifically designed around that problem. Riverside itself notes that its separate local tracks avoid the compromises of recording the whole conversation as a single stream. riverside.fm

For six callers, I'd personally go Riverside + everyone on headphones + wired Ethernet where practical. That gives you the best combination of individual tracks, recovery from connection problems, and manageable production afterward.

For an interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d prioritize a remote recording platform that does local (“double-end”) recording, not a normal video-call app. The key features you want are:

• Separate track per participant (one WAV/audio file per caller)
• Local capture on each person’s device so a bad connection doesn’t ruin the recording
• Progressive upload / recovery so files survive browser crashes or dropped connections
• Easy guest joining (ideally just a browser link)
• Good export workflow for your editor/DAW

My shortlist:

My recommendation for your case

For a recurring interview podcast with up to six callers, I’d choose:

1. Riverside — best overall if you record video too or want a polished production workflow. violetrecording.compodcastpontifications.com
2. bodalgoCall — worth considering if the six-caller limit is a hard requirement and you mainly care about clean remote audio. www.bodalgo.compodcast.adobe.com
3. Zencastr or SquadCast/Descript — good middle ground for audio-first shows. violetrecording.compodcastpontifications.com

I would not use Zoom as the primary recorder for a serious podcast. It is excellent for the conversation itself, but podcast platforms generally outperform it because they preserve isolated local tracks instead of relying on a compressed call recording. violetrecording.compodcastpontifications.com

A practical setup:

• Host + producer in Riverside/bodalgo
• Require every caller to use headphones
• Require a USB mic when possible
• Have a backup local recorder (even a phone voice memo from the host) for emergencies
• Do a 2-minute test recording before every episode

For six callers specifically, I’d also verify the platform’s maximum simultaneous participant count and plan limits before committing, because some services distinguish between guests, hosts, and active recording tracks. www.bodalgo.compodcast.adobe.com