ChatGPT answers, unedited

For a distributed team producing recurring episodes, I’d shortlist Riverside, Zencastr, and SquadCast/Descript. The key requirement you mentioned—remote recording + separate audio files that an editor can easily grab—rules out using ordinary Zoom/Meet as the primary recorder.

My pick: Riverside

riverside.com is probably the best overall fit if you're producing video + audio episodes and have multiple people involved in production.

Why I’d choose it:

• Separate local tracks for each participant, rather than relying on the compressed audio from the call.
• Strong video recording, including high-resolution sources.
• Guests can join through a browser rather than installing complicated software.
• The workflow is designed around recording, downloading/editing, and sharing production assets.
• It has increasingly strong editing/transcription/AI production features, which can reduce handoffs between the producer and editor. Riverside Riverside
• For a distributed team, having the recording assets centralized is much nicer than asking a producer to manually collect files from every participant.

Best if: you're doing video podcasts, executive/customer interviews, YouTube episodes, or a fairly sophisticated production workflow.

Best alternative: Zencastr

zencastr.com is especially compelling if your priority is audio production and handing clean individual files to an editor.

Zencastr records each participant locally and creates separate audio files per participant. Paid plans provide 16-bit/48 kHz WAV as well as MP3, and recordings are uploaded after capture. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

It also has a particularly useful feature for your workflow: you can export separate enhanced tracks—individual WAV/MP3 files with noise reduction, leveling, and loudness normalization already applied—while still giving your editor the tracks independently. Zencastr Help Center

Its team/show organization is also designed for multiple productions, with paid team plans allowing collaborators to access shows. Zencastr Help Center

Best if: you're primarily producing audio podcasts/interviews, have several shows or lots of episodes, and want the editor to receive individual WAVs without a lot of administrative work.

SquadCast + Descript

descript.com is worth considering if your editors already work heavily in Descript.

SquadCast is geared toward reliable remote recording with separate tracks, while Descript provides the editing/transcription workflow. Current comparisons generally position it as particularly attractive for teams that want recording → transcript → text-based editing in one ecosystem. Riverside PodRewind

The downside is that I'd favor Riverside or Zencastr if separate downloadable audio assets and production-team workflow are your primary concerns rather than text-based editing.

How I'd choose

One important workflow point

For your team, I'd structure it like this:

Host/producer → recording platform → centralized episode folder → editor

The recorder should automatically produce:

Episode 042/
├── Guest_Name.wav
├── Host_Name.wav
├── Guest_Name_video.mov
├── Host_Name_video.mov
└── notes / transcript

Then the editor works from those individual source tracks, rather than getting one mixed MP3. That's a major advantage when someone coughs, has background noise, talks over another person, or needs their level adjusted.

Bottom line: I'd start with Riverside if your episodes have video; Zencastr if they're predominantly audio. For a distributed production team, I actually lean Zencastr for an audio-first operation because its separate-track workflow and file-oriented approach map extremely well to handing episodes off to editors. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

If you tell me how many episodes/month, number of producers/editors, audio vs. video, and whether your editors use Pro Tools, Adobe Audition, Descript, or Audacity, I can narrow this to the best setup and plan.

For a distributed team producing interview episodes, I’d make Riverside the default choice.

The key requirement you mentioned—record once, then hand editors clean, separate files for each participant—is exactly what dedicated remote-recording platforms are designed for. They record locally on each participant’s device and upload the tracks, rather than making the internet call itself your master recording. podrewind.comriverside.com

My ranking

1. Riverside — my pick

Riverside records participants locally and produces separate audio/video tracks, with recordings progressively uploaded to the cloud. It supports up to 48 kHz audio and up to 4K video on supported plans. podrewind.comriverside.comriverside.comthepodcastconsultant.com

For a distributed production team, I'd structure the workflow like:

Producer schedules → guest gets link → interview recorded → Riverside generates individual tracks → producer/editor downloads or accesses source files → editor works from those masters.

That separation is important because the editor can independently EQ the host and guest, fix levels, remove noise, cut a participant without affecting the other track, etc.

It also has transcription, clips and editing capabilities, although I'd treat those as conveniences rather than reasons to replace your editor's actual post-production workflow. podrewind.comriverside.comriverside.comthepodcastconsultant.com

2. SquadCast / Descript — particularly good for audio teams

If your editors already use Descript, I'd seriously consider this instead.

SquadCast focuses heavily on reliable remote recording and separate tracks, while its integration with Descript gives you a fairly seamless record → transcribe → edit pipeline. podrewind.comwww.creatorstackclub.com

I'd choose this over Riverside if your episodes are primarily audio, and the editing team already works in Descript.

3. Zencastr — worth considering for a high-volume team

Zencastr also does local multitrack recording and can save audio to separate participant tracks. It additionally offers hosting, distribution and other podcast-production functions. podrewind.comriverside.comriverside.comthepodcastconsultant.com

One interesting consideration for a production company producing lots of episodes or multiple shows is its approach to separate-track access; current comparisons indicate it can be more generous than Riverside on some plans. contentallies.com

What I'd do for your team

If you're producing, say, a recurring interview series with a producer, remote host/guest, and separate editors, I'd pick:

Riverside + your existing editing/storage system.

Don't make the recording platform your entire production system. Instead:

Riverside → source-track archive → editor → final master → publishing

And establish a standard where editors always receive:

• Host WAV
• Guest WAV
• Any additional participant WAVs
• Video tracks if applicable
• A reference mix/video
• Transcript
• Episode/session metadata

That gives you a much more robust production pipeline than sending an editor a single mixed recording.

Bottom line: If you want one answer without overthinking it, Riverside is the strongest default in 2026 for distributed interview production. thepodcastconsultant.com

If you tell me how many episodes/month, number of people involved (producer/host/editor), audio-only vs video, and what your editors use (Premiere, Pro Tools, Descript, Final Cut, etc.), I can recommend the exact platform + team plan + file-sharing workflow I'd set up.

For a distributed production team where one person records the interview and an editor needs clean, separate files, I’d pick Riverside.

My ranking

Why I'd choose Riverside

Riverside records each participant locally on their own computer, rather than relying on the compressed audio of the video call. It then uploads those recordings, giving you individual high-quality tracks. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

For an editor, this is particularly useful because you can download:

• Host's WAV
• Guest 1's WAV
• Guest 2's WAV, etc.
• Aligned tracks when needed
• A ZIP containing the session's tracks
• An editing package that can be imported into Premiere Pro or Final Cut Pro on Business plans. Riverside Help Center

That maps very nicely to a distributed workflow:

Producer → Riverside session → separate WAVs → editor → final mix

You also aren't dependent on the guest having a great internet connection for the actual recording quality; the high-quality tracks are captured locally. Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm

When I'd choose Descript instead

If your editors already work heavily in Descript, I'd seriously consider Descript Rooms. It combines remote recording, separate tracks, transcription, and editing in the same ecosystem. Descript says Rooms records high-quality double-ended tracks and supports up to 10 participants. Descript Help Center Descript Help Center

The big distinction is:

• Riverside: record here, hand clean files to the post-production team
• Descript: record here, then keep the whole production inside Descript

Descript itself makes essentially this distinction in its current comparison: Riverside is oriented toward handing files off for editing elsewhere, while Descript keeps recording and editing together. Descript

descript.com

For your particular setup

If you have multiple producers recording episodes and a separate pool of editors, I'd lean Riverside Business because the handoff is cleaner. You can establish a standard such as:

Episode folder → raw WAV tracks → aligned WAV tracks → video tracks → producer notes → editor

That makes it much easier to have different editors pick up episodes without needing to understand the recording setup.

Bottom line: Riverside for a production-team workflow; Descript if your editors want to do most of the post-production inside the same platform.

If you tell me how many producers/editors you have, whether you're audio-only or video podcasting, and whether editors use Premiere, Pro Tools, Audition, or Descript, I can narrow this down to the best plan and workflow for your team.

For a distributed production team doing remote interviews and handing clean files to editors, I’d make Riverside the default choice.

My ranking

The key feature is local recording: each participant's microphone is recorded on their own computer rather than relying on the quality of the internet connection. The resulting tracks are uploaded separately, giving your editor clean files for each speaker. cutsio.com

Why I'd pick Riverside

Riverside is particularly good if your workflow looks like:

Producer schedules → guest gets a link → interview happens → Riverside generates separate tracks → editor downloads the files → editor works in Pro Tools/Premiere/Descript/etc.

It also gives you separate audio and video tracks, so you're not locking yourselves into an audio-only workflow if you eventually want video clips, YouTube episodes, or social content. Current comparisons consistently put Riverside at the top for video-first and professional remote production. thepodcastconsultant.com

When I'd choose SquadCast instead

SquadCast is compelling if you're primarily making audio episodes and your editors already work in Descript. It records participants locally in separate tracks and automatically uploads them to the cloud; the host can download WAV files afterward. It also supports up to 10 people in a session. squadcast.fm

So I'd think of it this way:

• Video + audio / polished production team → Riverside
• Audio podcast + Descript-heavy workflow → SquadCast
• Audio + podcast hosting/distribution in the same platform → Zencastr
• Occasional interviews where quality isn't mission-critical → Zoom

One thing I'd prioritize for your team

Don't choose based primarily on the video-call experience. Choose based on what the editor receives afterward.

You want:

1. Separate WAV track for every participant
2. Local recording rather than a compressed call recording
3. Automatic cloud upload
4. Easy project/episode organization
5. Producer/team permissions
6. Simple guest experience—ideally guest clicks a link, no account required
7. Easy bulk download/sharing with your editor
8. A backup mechanism for failed uploads

SquadCast explicitly supports guest participation without an account or software download, which is representative of the kind of low-friction workflow I'd want for a distributed team. squadcast.fm

If you tell me roughly how many episodes you produce per month, whether they're audio-only or video too, and what your editors use (Pro Tools, Adobe, Descript, etc.), I can narrow this down to the best platform + plan for your specific production workflow.

For a distributed team producing episodes, I’d prioritize (1) separate local audio tracks, (2) easy guest access, (3) editor handoff, and (4) team collaboration. The best choice depends on whether your episodes are audio-first or video-first.

My recommendation for your setup:

• Choose Riverside if episodes include video, YouTube, social clips, or you want producers/editors working from the same recording workspace. riverside.fmcontentallies.com
• Choose Zencastr if the final product is primarily audio and your main requirement is: “host records → download clean WAVs → editor mixes episode.” Its separate-track workflow is very editor-friendly. support.zencastr.com
• Choose SquadCast + Descript if your editors already live in Descript and you want recording-to-editing continuity. podrewind.com

A common distributed-team workflow:

1. Producer creates the session.
2. Guest receives a browser link (no complicated setup).
3. Platform records each speaker separately.
4. Producer exports WAV tracks + transcript.
5. Editor works from a shared folder/project (Google Drive, Dropbox, Frame.io, or the platform workspace).

For a team producing multiple episodes per month, I’d lean Riverside for video shows and Zencastr for audio-only shows. riverside.fmcontentallies.com

If you tell me your episode format (audio-only vs video, number of hosts/guests, and what editors use—Adobe Audition, Pro Tools, Descript, etc.), I can narrow it down.

For a distributed production team where the key requirement is “record remotely → automatically give editors separate, high-quality files,” I’d shortlist these:

🥇 Riverside — best overall for your setup

Riverside is probably what I'd choose for a distributed team.

The important distinction is that it isn't just recording the Zoom-style call. Each participant gets their own locally recorded track, which means the editor can independently adjust the host and guest rather than trying to clean up a mixed recording. Riverside also supports separate video tracks, making it particularly attractive if your episodes become video content. riverside.com

For a team, I'd structure the workflow as:

Producer schedules Riverside session → guest gets link → recording happens → Riverside uploads individual tracks → editor downloads/imports tracks → editor produces episode.

That minimizes the amount of technical work the guest has to do while keeping the editor's source material clean.

🥈 SquadCast — particularly good for audio podcasts

SquadCast / Descript is worth serious consideration if your episodes are primarily audio.

SquadCast records each participant's audio as a separate file, including lossless WAV, and progressively uploads recordings. That's exactly the kind of handoff an editor wants. help.descript.com

Its biggest advantage is the relationship with Descript: SquadCast is now part of Descript's ecosystem, so the recording-to-editing workflow can be very tight.

🥉 Descript — best if you want recording + editing together

Descript can record remote conversations with separate tracks and then put those recordings directly into the editing environment. It supports up to 10 participants with separate audio/video tracks. www.descript.com

This becomes particularly compelling if your editors already work in Descript: there's less file transferring and fewer handoffs.

What I'd choose for a distributed production company

If you're producing multiple shows/episodes with different producers, hosts, guests and editors, I'd rank them:

1. Riverside — best general-purpose production infrastructure
2. SquadCast + Descript — best audio-first/editor-centric workflow
3. Descript Rooms — best if you want to consolidate recording and editing
4. Zencastr — good alternative if keeping recording simple/cost-effective is important

One thing I'd prioritize over almost everything else: make sure the platform produces isolated WAV files and that your editors can download the raw tracks without the producer having to manually package them. That's what prevents a remote interview from becoming a mess downstream.

If you tell me (a) audio-only vs video, (b) roughly how many episodes/month, (c) how many producers/editors, and (d) whether your editors use Pro Tools, Descript, Audition, or Premiere, I can recommend the best setup and workflow for your team.

For a distributed team producing episodes, I’d put Zencastr at the top of the list—especially if your workflow is “record remotely → hand clean, separate files to an editor.”

My ranking

🥇 Zencastr — my pick for your setup

Zencastr records each participant locally, rather than simply capturing the compressed Zoom-style call. That means an internet hiccup doesn't necessarily degrade the recorded audio. It produces separate files for each participant, with paid plans offering 16-bit/48 kHz WAV. support.zencastr.com

More importantly for your team, Zencastr has a workflow around Sessions where recordings and media are organized, and paid team plans let you give collaborators access to shows. support.zencastr.com

You can also have Zencastr generate separate enhanced WAV/MP3 tracks with things like noise reduction, leveling, and loudness normalization—useful if your editors want files that are already cleaned up but still separate. support.zencastr.com

Zencastr

🥈 Descript — consider this if your editors work in Descript

Descript is particularly interesting if you want the platform to become more than a recorder. Its Rooms product records each participant's audio/video separately, including lossless WAV, and Descript has collaborative projects, comments, version history, and a shared media library. help.descript.com

So the workflow can be:

Producer creates session → guest joins link → interview recorded → editor gets project → editor edits transcript/audio/video → team reviews in the same workspace.

That can eliminate a lot of “download files → upload to Drive → send Slack message → editor downloads → send revision” friction.

Descript

🥉 Riverside — best if video matters

I'd lean toward Riverside if these are video interviews that also become YouTube/LinkedIn/social clips, rather than primarily audio episodes. Its core strength is high-quality remote recording with isolated participant tracks.

What I'd choose for your team

If your episodes are primarily audio podcasts/interviews:

Zencastr + your existing editor (Pro Tools, Audition, Reaper, Logic, etc.)

If you want recording + editing + review + collaboration in one place:

Descript Rooms

If you're producing video podcasts and lots of clips:

Riverside

One important detail: don't optimize around “separate audio files” alone. For a distributed production team, I'd evaluate how the platform handles file ownership, automatic uploads, naming, shared access, backups, editor handoff, and episode-level organization. That's where the difference between a good remote recorder and a good production workflow becomes significant.

If you tell me roughly how many people are on the production team, how many episodes/month, whether they're audio-only or video, and what editors use (Pro Tools/Descript/Adobe/etc.), I can recommend the best setup—including who should own the account, how files should flow to editors, and which plan makes sense.

For a distributed production team where remote interviews need to land as separate, editor-ready audio files, I’d pick Riverside as the default.

My ranking

🥇 Riverside — best fit for your workflow

Riverside records participants locally rather than relying on the compressed audio stream of the call. That means your editor gets separate, high-quality tracks for each participant, which is exactly what you want for distributed production. riverside.comwww.descript.com

A typical workflow would be:

Producer schedules interview → guest gets browser link → everyone records locally → Riverside uploads individual tracks → producer/editor downloads the session → editor works in their DAW.

The important part is that the editor isn't handed a single mixed interview. They can independently fix the host and guest—levels, noise, EQ, edits, cross-talk, etc.

Riverside is particularly compelling if you're also producing video, since it supports separate video tracks and high-resolution recording. uxerwave.com

🥈 SquadCast + Descript — worth considering for an audio-heavy team

Descript now incorporates SquadCast's remote recording technology. Descript creates separate tracks for participants and can move directly into transcript-based editing. riverside.comwww.descript.com

I'd choose this over Riverside if your editors want to do a lot of transcript-based editing, cleanup, clipping and review inside Descript, rather than exporting everything into Pro Tools, Audition, Logic, Reaper, etc.

🥉 Cleanfeed — if you don't care about video

If these are audio-only interviews and your editors are serious audio people, Cleanfeed is another strong option. It is specifically designed around high-quality remote audio rather than trying to be a video-podcast platform. riverside.com

What I'd implement for a distributed team

I'd standardize on:

Riverside → shared production storage → editor's DAW

And establish a simple convention:

• One Riverside project/session per episode
• Host and each guest always recorded as separate tracks
• WAV as the handoff format
• Consistent sample rate/bit depth across episodes
• Episode folder containing raw tracks + transcript + notes
• Editor receives raw files, not just Riverside's mixed export
• Keep the Riverside recording as the backup/source of truth

That gives you a clean separation between recording and editing, which is usually better once multiple producers/editors are involved.

Bottom line: If your primary requirement is “remote interviews that reliably produce separate, high-quality files an editor can grab afterward,” I'd choose Riverside. If you're already heavily invested in Descript, I'd choose Descript/SquadCast instead. riverside.comwww.descript.com

If you tell me how many people are on the production team, whether you're audio-only or video, and what editors use (Pro Tools/Logic/Descript/Premiere/etc.), I can recommend the most efficient end-to-end setup.

For a distributed team producing recurring episodes, I’d put Zencastr at the top of the list—especially if your key requirement is remote recording → separate high-quality files → handoff to editors.

My ranking

1. Zencastr — my pick for your workflow

Zencastr

Zencastr records each participant locally, so a bad internet connection doesn't necessarily degrade the recorded source. It produces separate tracks for every participant, including 16-bit/48 kHz WAV on its current plans. You can download the individual tracks or a ZIP containing the session files. support.zencastr.com

That's a very clean workflow for:

Producer schedules session → guests click link → record → producer/editor gets separate WAVs → editor works in Pro Tools/Audition/Logic/Descript/etc.

It also has team/show organization, and its current plans include unlimited separate-track recordings. support.zencastr.com

One particularly useful feature: paid plans can generate separate enhanced tracks with leveling, noise reduction and loudness normalization, while still giving your editor individual WAV files rather than forcing them to use a baked stereo mix. support.zencastr.com

2. Descript Rooms — best if editing/collaboration is equally important

Descript Rooms

Descript Rooms records each participant separately and is especially compelling if your editors already work in Descript. The platform combines recording, transcription, editing, comments and team collaboration, so you can keep more of the production process in one place. help.descript.com

I'd choose this over Zencastr if your team wants producer → editor → reviewer collaboration inside the same platform rather than simply handing WAVs to an editor.

3. Riverside — excellent, particularly for video

Riverside is a strong choice if your episodes are video podcasts/interviews first and audio podcasts second. Its local recording approach and isolated participant tracks make it well suited to editing multi-camera interviews.

What I'd do for your team

If you're producing, say, multiple episodes a month with producers, hosts, remote guests and separate editors, I'd standardize on:

Zencastr + your existing cloud storage/project management

For example:

Episode 042

• 01_Host.wav
• 02_Guest.wav
• 03_CoHost.wav
• 04_Soundboard.wav
• Episode_042_Video/
• Episode_042_Notes/

Then have the producer put the session into the team's shared production folder and assign the editor. This keeps the recording platform from becoming your entire production system.

One important distinction: don't optimize for the platform with the nicest video-call experience. For your workflow, the critical features are local recording, isolated WAV tracks, reliable file upload/backups, team access, and an easy editor handoff. Zencastr is particularly strong on those dimensions. support.zencastr.com

If you tell me how many people are on the production team, how many episodes/month, audio-only vs. video, and what your editors use (Pro Tools, Audition, Logic, Descript, etc.), I can narrow this down to the best platform + plan for your exact workflow.

For a distributed team producing episodes, I’d pick Riverside as the default.

The key requirement you mentioned—remote interviews → separate, editor-ready files → easy handoff to a distributed post team—is exactly where Riverside is strong.

My ranking

Why Riverside: each participant is recorded locally, rather than relying on the quality of the internet connection. The resulting high-quality tracks are separate WAV files that can be downloaded for Premiere, Final Cut, Pro Tools, etc. support.riverside.com

For a distributed production team, that's particularly useful because the host/producer doesn't have to chase files from guests. Riverside uploads the recordings to the project, and your editor can download the individual tracks from there. support.riverside.com

It also gives you a built-in editor if you want producers to do rough cuts, transcript-based edits, clips, or audio cleanup before handing the episode to an editor. support.riverside.com

When I'd choose SquadCast instead

SquadCast is worth choosing if your episodes are primarily audio and you want the recording experience to stay focused on podcast production. It records each participant locally into separate tracks and provides WAV files, with cloud recordings as backups. squadcast.fm

And Zencastr

Zencastr is another solid option. It also records participants locally and produces separate audio/video files, with WAV available on paid plans. support.zencastr.com

Bottom line:

• Video + audio + distributed editors: Riverside
• Audio-only + professional podcast workflow: SquadCast
• Simple/price-conscious setup: Zencastr

If you're producing a recurring series with multiple producers/editors, I'd lean Riverside because the recording, file collection, rough editing, and editor handoff can live in one workflow rather than stitching together Zoom + Dropbox/Drive + editing software. support.riverside.com

If you tell me how many people are on the production team, whether episodes are audio-only or video, and what your editors use (Pro Tools, Audition, Descript, Premiere, etc.), I can recommend the best workflow and plan level.

For a distributed team producing episodes and handing clean tracks to editors, I’d shortlist these:

My pick: Riverside

Riverside is probably the best overall fit if you're doing remote interviews regularly and the editor is not the person recording.

Why:

• Records each participant locally, so the guest's internet connection doesn't determine the quality of the master recording.
• Produces separate tracks per participant, which is exactly what your editors need.
• Supports high-quality audio and separate video tracks.
• Cloud uploading means producers don't have to manually collect files from every guest.
• Strong workflow for teams producing video + audio episodes. riverside.com

If you're primarily audio: SquadCast

SquadCast / Descript is worth serious consideration if your episodes are audio-first.

It records a separate file from each participant and supports 48 kHz lossless WAV, which is ideal for an audio editor. It's now part of the Descript ecosystem, so there's a nice handoff into editing. help.descript.com

If you want recording + editing + collaboration: Descript Rooms

Descript Rooms is particularly interesting for a distributed production team. Each participant gets separate audio/video tracks, and the recordings flow directly into Descript's collaborative editor. help.descript.com

Descript can also export audio as WAV and export timelines for Premiere, Final Cut, Pro Tools, Reaper, and other editing systems, which makes the editor handoff much easier. help.descript.com

How I'd choose

For your specific setup, I'd lean Riverside unless you're strictly audio. The important thing isn't just "can it record remote interviews?"—it's whether the platform gives your editors clean, individually downloadable WAV tracks without making the producer chase guests for files.

If you tell me (1) audio-only vs video, (2) how many people are typically on an episode, (3) what your editors use—Premiere/Pro Tools/Logic/Descript/etc., and (4) roughly how many episodes/month, I can narrow this to the best platform and plan for your team.

For a distributed production team where the editor needs clean, separate files, I’d make Riverside the default choice.

My ranking

Why Riverside: it records each participant locally rather than relying on the compressed call stream, then lets you download each person's high-quality audio/video track separately. support.riverside.com That's exactly what you want when an editor needs to independently EQ, denoise, level, cut, or replace a guest's track.

It also means your workflow can be:

Producer schedules Riverside → guest clicks browser link → interview recorded → Riverside uploads individual tracks → editor downloads/imports tracks → editor works in Pro Tools, Audition, Logic, DaVinci, etc.

Riverside

When I'd choose Descript instead

If your editors already work heavily in Descript, I'd seriously consider Descript's built-in Rooms/SquadCast workflow. Descript now incorporates SquadCast, and its remote recordings produce separate participant tracks; the recordings can flow directly into the Descript editing environment. www.descript.com

Descript

So my rule of thumb is:

• Editors use traditional DAWs/NLEs → Riverside
• Editors primarily use Descript → Descript
• Audio-only, very simple interviews → Cleanfeed is worth considering
• Don't use ordinary Zoom as your master recording unless convenience matters more than production quality.

One operational detail I'd standardize: tell every guest to stay in the recording session until the upload is confirmed complete. Riverside and SquadCast both rely on participants' local recordings being uploaded, so that's an important part of the production SOP. help.descript.com

If you tell me how many producers/editors you have, whether episodes are audio-only or video, and what your editors use (Pro Tools, Audition, Descript, Premiere, etc.), I can recommend the best setup—including file handoff/storage and permissions for a distributed team.

For a distributed team producing interview episodes, I’d make Riverside the default recording platform.

The key requirement you mentioned—recording remote interviews and handing separate audio files to editors—is exactly where Riverside is strongest. It records each participant locally, producing separate high-quality tracks rather than one compressed mixed recording. Those tracks can be downloaded for use in external editing software. support.riverside.fm

My shortlist

Why Riverside: after a session, your team can download the participants' high-quality tracks, including WAV audio, and hand those files to an editor working in Pro Tools, Adobe Audition, Logic, Premiere, etc. support.riverside.fm

It also keeps the tracks synchronized, so the editor doesn't have to manually line up every participant. riverside.com

Where Descript makes sense

If your editors already work heavily in Descript, I'd seriously consider it instead. Descript now incorporates remote recording and creates separate audio/video tracks for guests, while giving the team a particularly convenient transcript-based editing workflow. www.descript.com

But if your workflow is:

Producer schedules → host interviews guest → recording happens → editor receives isolated WAVs → editor does professional post-production

I'd choose Riverside.

One useful team workflow would be to have one Riverside account/workspace owned by production, standardized recording settings, and a naming convention for episodes/files. Then the producer can simply hand the editor the complete track package after each interview.

Riverside

If you tell me how many people are on the production team, what editors use (Pro Tools/Audition/Descript/etc.), and whether you record video too, I can recommend the best setup and plan for your specific workflow.

For a distributed production team where the key requirement is “record the interview remotely, then hand clean, separate tracks to an editor,” I’d make Riverside the default choice.

My ranking

1. Riverside — best overall for your setup

Riverside

Riverside records participants locally rather than relying on the quality of the live call, and produces separate tracks for post-production. That means your editor can get an individual WAV/audio file for each person rather than trying to clean up a mixed Zoom recording. It also handles video separately if you're producing video episodes or clips. riverside.com

For a distributed team, I'd particularly value the producer/host → guest → editor workflow: one person runs the interview, the guest gets a simple browser link, and the editor receives the individual media tracks afterward.

2. Descript Rooms — best if your editors already use Descript

Descript Rooms

This is probably the strongest alternative. Descript Rooms records separate tracks for participants and puts the session directly into the Descript editing environment. Descript specifically supports separate guest audio/video tracks and collaborative editing/review. www.descript.com

It also added lossless WAV recording, with separate audio-only WAV files available from recordings. feedback.descript.com

So if your editors are already living in Descript, I'd actually choose Descript over Riverside to eliminate a handoff.

3. SquadCast — great for audio-first shows

SquadCast

SquadCast is particularly attractive if these are primarily audio interviews rather than video podcasts. It's designed around remote recording and integrates closely with Descript. podrewind.com

What I'd choose for your team

If I were designing the workflow:

Producer: Riverside
↓
Remote guest: joins via browser
↓
Recording: each participant captured separately
↓
Riverside: uploads individual tracks
↓
Editor: downloads/receives separate WAVs
↓
Editor: mixes in Pro Tools, Audition, Logic, Descript, etc.

That is a much better production architecture than recording the interview in Zoom/Meet and trying to extract usable audio afterward. Remote-recording platforms are specifically designed to preserve each participant's local recording quality. podrewind.com

One important requirement I'd put in your team SOP: require separate, lossless WAV files per participant, rather than MP3s or a single mixed file. That gives editors maximum flexibility for EQ, compression, noise reduction, leveling, and fixing crosstalk.

Bottom line:

• Riverside → best general choice for a distributed episode-production team.
• Descript Rooms → best if your editing team already works in Descript.
• SquadCast → best if you're predominantly audio and want a focused recording tool.
• Zencastr → worth considering if keeping costs down is particularly important. www.creatorstackclub.com

If you tell me how many producers/editors you have, whether episodes are audio-only or video + audio, and what your editors use (Pro Tools, Audition, Descript, Premiere, etc.), I can recommend the best end-to-end workflow and plan rather than just the recording platform.