Remote Simultaneous Interpretation (RSI) delivers real-time interpretation over a video platform, with the interpreter working on a separate audio channel so participants choose their language from a menu, the same as with an in-room booth. It suits recurring calls, multi-city meetings, and any session where flying an interpreter in isn't practical, provided the connection and platform are set up correctly.
What RSI actually is
Remote Simultaneous Interpretation (RSI) reproduces the same dual-channel setup as an in-room interpretation booth, without the booth. The interpreter listens to the original speaker on one audio channel — through a dedicated console, a laptop, or a purpose-built interpreting device — and speaks the interpretation into a second channel, so each participant selects a language from a menu inside the call, the same way they'd pick a channel on a wireless receiver in a conference room.
This can run through a video platform's built-in interpretation feature (Zoom and Microsoft Teams both offer one), or through a dedicated RSI platform layered on top of the call for larger or more technically demanding events. The interpreting itself doesn't change: it's the same real-time, simultaneous method used in a physical booth, adapted to run over an internet connection instead of a wire between a booth and a receiver.
The technical requirements that actually determine quality
RSI quality depends on infrastructure that's easy to overlook until it fails mid-call: a wired internet connection is more reliable than Wi-Fi for the interpreter's side, since simultaneous interpretation can't tolerate the packet loss or latency spikes that a shared or congested wireless connection introduces. A proper headset — not a laptop's built-in microphone and speakers — prevents the echo and audio bleed that happens when a microphone picks up its own speaker output, which is disruptive enough in real time that it can make an interpreter's audio genuinely hard to follow.
ISO 20108 sets out the industry requirements for sound and image quality and transmission in simultaneous interpreting, covering exactly this kind of technical baseline, and a separate standard, ISO 24019, addresses the delivery platforms themselves — the software layer that manages the audio channels and language selection. None of this needs to be visible to meeting participants; it just needs to work, which is why testing the setup before the actual call catches problems a live session doesn't leave room to fix.
When remote makes more sense than on-site
Remote interpretation suits recurring calls — a weekly project update, a monthly investor call — where the setup cost of arranging on-site equipment and travel doesn't make sense for a meeting that happens every few weeks regardless. It also suits negotiations or meetings with participants dialing in from multiple cities at once, where there's no single room to put an interpreter in, and any situation where flying an interpreter to a location isn't practical on the timeline available — a call scheduled with two or three days' notice, for instance.
What remote interpretation doesn't replace well is a meeting where being physically present matters to the outcome: a sensitive negotiation, a site visit, or an event built around in-person relationship-building. The two formats solve different problems, and STIB scopes each booking against what the meeting actually needs rather than defaulting to one.
Team staffing works the same as on-site
The interpreter-fatigue math behind AIIC's team-interpreting practice doesn't change because the interpreter is working from a console instead of a booth. For simultaneous sessions running longer than about an hour, the same standard applies: two interpreters per active language, alternating roughly every twenty to thirty minutes, because sustained real-time interpretation degrades in accuracy with fatigue regardless of where the interpreter is sitting.
A remote setup can make the handoff between the two interpreters slightly easier logistically, since both can join from wherever they're working rather than needing to physically swap places in a booth, but the underlying reason for the second interpreter — cognitive load, not convenience — is identical to an on-site session.
What to check before the call
Confirm the platform being used supports separate language channels — most major platforms do, sometimes only as an add-on that needs enabling ahead of time rather than something available by default — and run a short test call beforehand rather than discovering a configuration problem once the real meeting has started. Share slides, documents, and any technical or company-specific vocabulary with the interpreter in advance; a live call gives no room to look up a term or ask for clarification without everyone hearing the pause.
For sessions with participants across multiple time zones, agree on one reference time zone in the invitation, since a remote call removes the scheduling excuse of physical distance but not the underlying time-zone math.
Key takeaways
- RSI reproduces the same dual-channel interpretation used in a physical booth, running over a video platform instead of hardware in a room.
- A wired connection and a real headset — not a laptop's built-in mic and speakers — are the two technical details that most affect quality.
- ISO 20108 covers sound and image quality for simultaneous interpreting, and ISO 24019 covers the interpreting delivery platforms themselves.
- Sessions over about an hour still use two interpreters per active language in rotation, per AIIC industry practice — the same standard as on-site work.
- Remote suits recurring calls and multi-city meetings; on-site remains the better fit when physical presence affects the outcome.
Need help with this?
How remote interpretation works, when it's the right call, and what to check before your next video call.
Frequently asked questions
Is remote interpretation the same quality as having an interpreter in the room?
The interpreting method is identical — real-time, dual-channel simultaneous interpretation, staffed the same way. What differs is logistics: no booth or travel, but quality depends on connection stability and audio setup, which is why testing the platform beforehand matters.
What video platforms support remote simultaneous interpretation?
Zoom and Microsoft Teams both include built-in interpretation features, and dedicated RSI platforms can run alongside other video tools for larger or more technically demanding events. Availability of the language-channel feature should be confirmed and tested before the meeting.
Do I need two interpreters for a remote session, or is one enough?
For simultaneous interpretation running longer than about an hour, industry practice calls for two interpreters per active language, the same as on-site — fatigue affects accuracy regardless of whether the interpreter is in a booth or working remotely.
What's the most common technical problem in remote interpretation calls?
Audio quality issues from an unstable Wi-Fi connection or a laptop's built-in microphone picking up its own speaker output. Both are avoidable with a wired connection and a proper headset, checked in a test call before the actual meeting.