ChatGPT answers, unedited

Yes. If archival-quality audio is the priority, you want a service that does local/double-ended recording—each participant's microphone is recorded on their own device and uploaded, rather than recording the compressed VoIP stream.

The strongest options I found are:

1. Riverside — my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally, producing a separate audio track for every person. Its high-quality participant tracks are uncompressed WAV, with 48 kHz audio. The files are progressively uploaded while recording, so you're not dependent on the live internet connection for the actual recording quality. riverside.fm

For archival work, that's a very good combination:

• Separate WAV per participant
• 48 kHz
• Uncompressed
• Local/double-ended recording
• Progressive upload
• Separate tracks remain available for your own archival master
• Guests can generally join through a link rather than installing a complicated DAW setup

Riverside's audio-format documentation is particularly useful because it distinguishes the local high-quality tracks from its lower-quality cloud recording.

2. Zencastr — excellent alternative

Zencastr is also specifically designed around local recording. It creates a separate audio file for each participant, rather than capturing the compressed call. Its current documentation says paid plans provide 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV files. riverside.fmsupport.zencastr.com

Zencastr explicitly describes the participant recordings as being stored locally and progressively uploaded, meaning an internet hiccup shouldn't degrade the recorded audio. support.zencastr.com

One thing I'd verify before committing to a particular plan is the exact WAV availability/bit depth offered on that plan, because Zencastr's documentation has changed over time.

What I'd choose for an archive

If this is for something like oral histories, interviews, research recordings, documentary source material, or a long-term media archive, I'd lean:

Riverside → 48 kHz uncompressed WAV per participant

or

Zencastr → 48 kHz/16-bit WAV per participant

I'd also download the individual WAVs rather than keeping only the mixed/mastered file. The individual tracks preserve considerably more information for future restoration, transcription, remixing, noise reduction, etc.

One important archival caveat: WAV is lossless, but 16-bit/48 kHz isn't necessarily the ideal archival capture specification. If you're aiming for a formal preservation master, I'd ideally want 24-bit/48 kHz or 24-bit/96 kHz. Remote platforms tend to impose their own capture specifications, so a dedicated local recorder/DAW at each participant's end can still beat the convenience of Riverside/Zencastr.

If you tell me what kind of archival project this is and whether you need video too, I can compare the major remote-recording platforms specifically on bit depth, sample rate, WAV format, local-vs-cloud recording, file retention, and whether the original unprocessed files can be downloaded.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality remote recording with an independent lossless file for every participant, there are several good options. The key feature to look for is local/“double-ended” recording: each participant's microphone is captured on their own device and uploaded, rather than the service recording the compressed conference-call audio.

Best options

1. Riverside — my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally and produces separate high-quality tracks. Its raw audio is uncompressed WAV using linear PCM, 16-bit, at either 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. support.riverside.com

That makes it particularly attractive for archival work: you can retain the original participant WAVs and create derivatives later.

It also has progressive uploading, so the local recording is uploaded while the session is happening rather than relying solely on the live internet connection. support.riverside.comriverside.fm

Riverside audio recording details

Important archival detail: preserve the Raw Audio WAV rather than a processed/Magic Audio export. Riverside explicitly distinguishes the raw participant recording from its AI-enhanced versions. support.riverside.comriverside.fm

2. Zencastr — also excellent

Zencastr records participants separately and locally. Its paid plans provide 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV files for each participant. support.zencastr.comzencastr.ghost.io

This is a particularly straightforward choice if your archival specification is something like:

One independent 16-bit/48 kHz PCM WAV master per speaker

Zencastr explicitly describes the WAV recordings as lossless and says the local recording is unaffected by internet problems. support.zencastr.comzencastr.ghost.io

Zencastr recording documentation

3. SquadCast — strong alternative

SquadCast likewise records participants locally in separate tracks and automatically uploads them. Its local recordings are 48 kHz/16-bit, and WAV is available as an output format. squadcast.fm

It also retains cloud recordings as backups, which is useful operationally, although for an archive I'd treat those as backup/reference copies rather than your preservation master. squadcast.fm

SquadCast recording features

What I'd use for an archive

If this is genuinely long-term preservation rather than just making a good podcast, I'd prioritize:

1. Riverside — best overall combination of local WAV masters, separate tracks, progressive upload, and archival-oriented file handling.
2. Zencastr — excellent if you specifically want a straightforward 48-kHz WAV-per-participant workflow.
3. SquadCast — similarly strong, with useful redundancy.

One important caveat: 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless, but it isn't necessarily the highest archival specification you could capture. If you're conducting something like an oral-history project, archival interviews, linguistic research, or cultural-record preservation, I'd ideally want 24-bit PCM at 48 or 96 kHz from the participants' microphones. The platforms above generally center around 16-bit/48 kHz, so a dedicated local recorder workflow can be preferable when maximum preservation fidelity is the goal.

If you tell me what kind of material you're archiving (interviews, music, oral histories, meetings, etc.) and how many participants, I can narrow this down to the best workflow—including 24-bit options, metadata, checksums, file naming, and a proper archival master/derivative strategy.

For archival-quality remote recording, you generally want a platform that does local (“double-ender”) recording, creates one isolated lossless file per participant, and uploads backups rather than recording the call stream. The main options are:

Best choices for archival purposes

Highest-quality / long-term preservation

• Riverside — probably the most widely adopted option for archival interview workflows because it combines local capture, isolated tracks, WAV export, and robust cloud backup. Riverside Riverside
• Boomcaster — a good fit if you are treating recordings more like broadcast/interview masters and want clean isolated files. Boomcaster

Audio-only oral history, journalism, research interviews

• Zencastr — simple and audio-focused. Zencastr
• SquadCast — good if you already use the Descript ecosystem and want WAV-per-person workflows. Descript Help Center

Archival workflow recommendations

For true preservation, I would aim for:

• WAV, not MP3/AAC/Opus
• 48 kHz / 24-bit if available (many remote platforms provide 48 kHz but may limit bit depth)
• Keep the original isolated tracks: - Interviewee_Name.wav
• Interviewer_Name.wav
• room tone / ambience if captured
• Preserve: - original filenames
• recording date/time
• participant names
• microphone/interface details
• consent/release documentation
• Store a checksum (for example SHA-256) so you can verify files have not changed.

One caveat: many “lossless” remote platforms are lossless after capture, but the actual microphone capture chain depends on the participant’s hardware, OS audio settings, and browser. For irreplaceable archival interviews, a common professional approach is to have the remote participant also run a local backup recorder (for example a DAW or portable recorder) while using the remote platform as the sync/communication layer.

Yes. If your requirement is remote recording + a separate lossless file for every participant, there are several good options. The important distinction is that the platform should record locally on each participant's device, rather than merely recording the conference stream.

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally and produces separate WAV files. Its raw audio is uncompressed linear PCM, 16-bit, at 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. support.riverside.com

The particularly useful archival feature is that recordings are progressively uploaded while the session is happening, so you get the advantages of local recording without having to rely on the participant remembering to send you their file afterward. riverside.fm

For an archival workflow, I'd configure it for:

• WAV
• 48 kHz
• 16-bit PCM
• Separate/raw participant tracks
• Avoid AI enhancement as your archival master
• Keep the original WAVs untouched; make processed versions separately

Riverside explicitly describes its raw WAV as the participant's uncompressed audio-only track, which makes it a good fit for preservation. support.riverside.com

2. SquadCast

SquadCast is also a strong archival choice. It records participants locally and on separate tracks, then uploads those recordings to the cloud. Its documentation specifies 48 kHz/16-bit for local recordings and WAV availability. squadcast.fm

One nice feature for archival interviews is that local recording means a guest's bad internet connection doesn't inherently degrade the master recording. The internet connection is being used for the conversation and upload, rather than being the source of the audio master. squadcast.fm

3. Zencastr

Zencastr is another particularly good match. Its current documentation says paid plans record 16-bit/48 kHz WAV files, separately for each participant, using local recording. support.zencastr.com

Zencastr also keeps a local browser-storage backup on the participant's computer, which is useful protection against an internet failure during the interview. support.zencastr.com

What I'd choose for an archive

If this is for oral histories, research interviews, historical documentation, journalism, or a collection you expect to preserve for decades, I'd rank them:

Riverside ≈ Zencastr ≈ SquadCast

The differences are less about whether they can produce a lossless WAV—they all can—and more about workflow, reliability, storage/export controls, and how much you trust the service to retain your originals.

One important archival caveat: WAV itself doesn't make something archival. I'd preserve the original, unprocessed, per-speaker PCM WAV and treat noise reduction, leveling, AI enhancement, EQ, etc. as derivative files. Also retain metadata/session information separately if the material has research or historical value.

If you tell me whether this is for oral-history interviews, podcasts, academic research, legal/deposition recordings, or general personal archiving, I can narrow this down and compare the services specifically on bit depth, sample rate, file ownership, download limits, retention, backups, and pricing.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with a separate file/track for every remote participant, there are a few good options. The important distinction is that the service should record locally on each participant's device, rather than merely recording the conference stream.

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

Riverside is explicitly designed around double-ender/local recording: each participant's audio is captured on their own computer and then uploaded, rather than being derived from the internet call. It provides a separate high-quality track for each participant. riverside.fmsupport.riverside.comsupport.riverside.fm

For audio-only recording, the raw audio is WAV using linear PCM, with 16-bit depth and a 44.1 or 48 kHz sample rate depending on the studio settings. That's genuinely uncompressed/lossless audio. riverside.fmsupport.riverside.comsupport.riverside.fm

It also offers raw aligned WAV tracks, which is useful for archival/post-production workflows because the files can be synchronized across participants. support.riverside.fm

One particularly useful archival feature is progressive uploading: the local recordings are uploaded while the session is happening, providing some protection if a participant's computer/browser subsequently fails. riverside.fmsupport.riverside.comsupport.riverside.fm

2. SquadCast — very strong alternative

SquadCast also records each participant locally at the source and provides individual files for each participant. Its local recordings are 48 kHz, 16-bit, and are available as WAV. squadcast.fmsupport.riverside.com

It also continuously uploads recordings and maintains cloud recordings as backups. squadcast.fmsupport.riverside.com

For a pure audio archival workflow, I'd consider SquadCast and Riverside quite close.

What I'd choose for archival work

If you're creating an actual master archive, rather than just trying to get good-sounding podcast audio, I'd lean toward:

Riverside → raw participant WAV → preserve those WAVs as the masters → make derivative files (FLAC/MP3/etc.) for access.

The key is to retain the untouched raw WAV files rather than downloading an edited/mixed version. Riverside specifically distinguishes its raw participant WAV tracks from processed/edited tracks. riverside.fmsupport.riverside.comsupport.riverside.fm

A good archival capture target would be:

• WAV / linear PCM
• 48 kHz
• 24-bit if the platform permits it; otherwise 16-bit
• One independent file per participant
• No noise reduction, leveling, compression, or AI enhancement applied to the archival master
• Preserve the original files and metadata
• Generate FLAC derivatives if you want to reduce storage without losing anything

One caveat: Riverside and SquadCast's documented local capture is 16-bit, so if your archival standard specifically requires 24-bit PCM, I'd look at a different workflow involving participants recording locally in a DAW/recorder and uploading their masters. squadcast.fmsupport.riverside.com

If you tell me how many participants you typically have, whether you need video, and whether 24-bit/96 kHz is a requirement, I can narrow this down to the best archival workflow and compare the current plans/pricing.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an independent file for each participant, there are several good options. The important distinction is that you want local/double-ended recording—each participant's microphone is recorded on their own device—rather than simply recording the VoIP stream.

1. Riverside — my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally and provides separate, uncompressed WAV tracks, currently documented as 48 kHz. Its high-quality participant tracks are specifically intended for offline editing. support.riverside.fm

For archival work, a particularly useful feature is that Riverside distinguishes between raw tracks and aligned tracks. You can download the raw WAV for preservation and use the aligned version for editing. support.riverside.fm

Riverside official site

Why I'd pick it: straightforward guest experience + local recording + separate WAVs + progressive uploading.

2. Zencastr — excellent audio-only choice

Zencastr records each participant locally and supplies separate tracks. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV for paid plans. support.zencastr.com

The important archival advantage is that the WAV isn't generated from the internet call: the participant's microphone is recorded locally, so network problems don't become part of the master recording. zencastr.com

Zencastr official site

Why I'd pick it: particularly attractive if you don't need elaborate video production.

3. SquadCast — another strong option

remote recording platform likewise makes individual local recordings for participants and offers 16-bit/48 kHz WAV files. It also retains network recordings as backups, but those are compressed MP3s—so for archival purposes you'd want the local WAVs, not the network recordings.

SquadCast official site

What I'd use for an archive

For something you genuinely want to preserve for decades, I'd structure the workflow roughly like this:

Participant microphone → local uncompressed WAV → cloud transfer → download original WAV → archival storage

Don't use the mixed/mastered output as your preservation master. Keep the original per-participant WAV files untouched, ideally with the recording metadata/session information alongside them.

I'd also favor 48 kHz/24-bit if the platform allows it. The three platforms above prominently document 16-bit/48 kHz in their standard WAV workflows; 16-bit WAV is still genuinely lossless, but 24-bit gives you more headroom for archival production.

One other consideration: lossless ≠ necessarily archival-perfect. A WAV can be lossless while still having clipping, microphone noise, poor room acoustics, or sample-rate conversion. For archival interviews/oral histories, the microphone, room, participant monitoring, and preservation of the original files matter just as much.

My ranking for your specific use case:
Riverside > Zencastr > SquadCast, with Riverside getting the edge because of its raw/aligned WAV distinction and particularly mature multitrack workflow. support.riverside.fm

If you tell me whether you're recording interviews/oral histories, music, podcasts, meetings, or something else, I can narrow this down further—including which ones can do 24-bit WAV, 96 kHz, BWF metadata, automatic local backups, and long-term file retention.

For archival-quality remote recording, you generally want local (“double-ended”) recording, where each participant’s microphone is captured on their own machine and uploaded separately. This avoids internet compression/dropouts and gives you an isolated master track per person.

Here are the main options that support WAV or other lossless per-participant files:

Best choices for archival purposes

Highest confidence archival workflow

• Riverside or SquadCast: mature platforms, separate WAV tracks, easy export into DAWs. help.descript.comriverside.fm

For oral history, journalism, interviews, or institutional archives

• Prefer:
  • WAV/PCM
  • 48 kHz sample rate
  • 24-bit if available (many browser tools still provide 16-bit)
  • isolated mono tracks per speaker
  • original files preserved before any AI cleanup/noise reduction

For the most preservation-focused setup
Consider bypassing browser services:

• Each participant records locally in a DAW/recorder (e.g., Reaper, Audacity, Hindenburg, Pro Tools, etc.)
• Use a video/chat service only for communication
• Sync tracks afterward using a clap/slate or timecode

Things I would avoid for archival masters

• Zoom cloud recordings (typically compressed and mixed)
• MP3/AAC as the primary archive
• AI-enhanced/noise-reduced files as the original master
• Any service where only the combined mix is downloadable

A practical archival chain would be:

Participant microphone → local WAV capture → cloud backup upload → export original WAV stems → checksum files → store in archival storage

If this is for oral history, legal records, academic research, podcast production, or music/voice performance, the ideal choice changes slightly.

Yes. For archival-quality remote recording, you want a service that records each participant locally on their own device and uploads the resulting uncompressed WAV/PCM track separately. That avoids the quality degradation and internet artifacts of recording the actual call stream.

The strongest current options are:

1. Riverside — probably my first choice for archival work

Riverside creates a separate high-quality track for every participant, recorded locally on their device rather than from the internet call. Its raw audio is WAV, 16-bit linear PCM, with 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio configuration. support.riverside.com

That makes it particularly suitable if your goal is to retain a master recording for future restoration/re-editing, rather than simply producing a podcast.

Riverside

2. Zencastr

Zencastr also records participants locally and independently, producing separate tracks. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans, with the tracks unaffected by problems in the internet connection. support.zencastr.com

One nice archival feature is that Zencastr maintains local/browser backups while progressively uploading the recordings, reducing the risk of losing a track if the connection drops. zencastr.com

Zencastr

3. SquadCast

SquadCast is particularly straightforward: each participant gets a separate recording, and its lossless mode produces 48 kHz WAV/PCM files. help.descript.com

SquadCast is now part of the Descript ecosystem, but its recording workflow remains a good option if you're primarily interested in remote interviews rather than an all-in-one editing workflow. help.descript.com

SquadCast / Descript

4. Descript Rooms

Descript's newer Rooms system can generate a separate WAV for each participant when "Generate lossless audio files" is enabled. The lossless mode requires a Chromium-based browser such as Chrome, Edge, or Arc. help.descript.com

It's an attractive option if you want the recording to flow directly into Descript's editing/transcription workflow.

Descript

For an actual archival workflow

I'd prioritize these characteristics over the marketing term "studio quality":

Local capture → separate participant WAV → PCM/uncompressed → 48 kHz → 24-bit if available → redundant upload/local copy.

One important caveat: 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless, but it isn't necessarily the highest-resolution archival master. If you're doing serious oral-history, documentary, music, or institutional archival work, I'd ideally want 24-bit/48 kHz or 24-bit/96 kHz capture. The major remote platforms above generally center around 16-bit/48 kHz, so a locally recorded backup may still be worthwhile for particularly valuable material.

Also, for archival purposes, don't enable AI noise reduction, "studio sound," automatic leveling, or other enhancement on the master capture. Keep the untouched WAVs as your preservation masters and make processed copies for publication.

My short ranking for your use case: Riverside ≈ Zencastr > SquadCast > Descript Rooms, with the exact choice depending on whether you prioritize archival controls, guest simplicity, or editing/transcription afterward.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an independent file for each participant, the strongest options I’d look at are:

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally and produces separate high-quality tracks. Its high-quality participant tracks can be downloaded as WAV, and its documentation describes them as the highest-quality tracks for offline editing. support.riverside.fmsupport.riverside.fmsupport.zencastr.comriverside.fm

For archival work, an especially useful feature is that Riverside distinguishes raw tracks from aligned tracks. The raw participant audio is retained as WAV, while aligned WAV tracks can be generated for easier post-production. support.riverside.fm

Why I'd favor it: good combination of lossless capture, local recording, progressive upload, separate tracks, and relatively straightforward guest experience.

2. Zencastr — excellent audio-focused alternative

Zencastr records each participant locally and provides separate audio files. Paid plans currently provide 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV files in addition to MP3. support.zencastr.com

That's a particularly nice specification for spoken-word archival material: 48 kHz / 16-bit PCM WAV is genuinely lossless and is a standard preservation-friendly format.

One important archival precaution: Zencastr tells participants to keep the recording page open until the upload-confirmation appears. support.zencastr.com I'd make that part of your recording procedure.

3. SquadCast

SquadCast is also designed around double-ended/local recording, with separate uncompressed WAV audio for participants. Riverside's comparison documentation specifically describes both platforms as producing separate local uncompressed WAV files. riverside.fm

What I'd choose for an archive

If you're recording oral histories, interviews, research, documentary material, or anything where the original recording may need to be preserved for decades, I'd prioritize:

Riverside or Zencastr → individual participant WAVs → your own archival storage

And I would not treat the final mixed podcast/video export as the archival master. Keep the original per-person WAVs, ideally alongside metadata documenting:

• sample rate / bit depth
• participant identity
• microphone/recorder if known
• recording date/time
• software/platform and version
• any processing performed
• the original unedited files
• checksums (e.g. SHA-256) for long-term integrity

One subtle point: “WAV” alone doesn't necessarily mean lossless—WAV is a container. What you want is uncompressed PCM inside it, such as the 48 kHz PCM WAV files these platforms provide.

If you tell me whether this is for oral history, music, podcasts, interviews/research, or another type of archive, I can narrow this down further—including which platform gives you the best sample rate/bit depth, file ownership/download options, retention, and preservation workflow.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality audio with a separate lossless file for each participant, there are several good options.

My picks

1. Riverside — best general-purpose choice

Riverside records each participant locally and provides uncompressed 48 kHz WAV tracks, separately for each person. Because the recording happens locally, Internet problems during the conversation don't degrade the master audio. riverside.fm

For archival work, that's a very good workflow: you retain the original WAV for preservation and can make derivative MP3/AAC files later.

2. Zencastr — excellent if you're primarily recording audio

Zencastr records each participant separately and currently offers 16-bit/48 kHz WAV on its paid plans. Its local recording system also keeps a local copy at the participant's end, protecting against connection problems. support.zencastr.com

One particularly useful archival feature is that Zencastr distinguishes the raw separate tracks from its processed/enhanced tracks. For preservation, I'd keep the raw tracks and treat any noise reduction/mastering as a derivative. support.zencastr.com

3. SquadCast — another strong archival option

SquadCast captures each participant locally and provides 16-bit/48 kHz WAV files separately. It also maintains cloud recordings as a backup, while the local recordings are the high-quality masters. squadcast.fmsupport.riverside.fm

One important archival distinction

Don't just look for "WAV." For preservation, I'd specifically want:

• Uncompressed PCM WAV
• 48 kHz or higher
• 24-bit preferred if the service actually offers it; 16-bit/48 kHz is still perfectly usable
• One isolated track per participant
• Local recording at the source, rather than recording the VoIP stream
• Original/raw tracks retained, before noise reduction, leveling, compression, or other processing
• Progressive upload/backup so a participant's computer failure doesn't destroy the recording

The three platforms above meet the particularly important local + isolated + WAV requirements. Riverside explicitly describes its high-quality tracks as raw files recorded locally on each participant's device, while Zencastr and SquadCast likewise use local recording. support.riverside.fm

If this is genuinely for long-term archival preservation rather than podcast production, I'd lean toward Riverside or Zencastr and preserve the untouched participant WAVs as your masters. Avoid relying on the platform's automatically "enhanced," mastered, or mixed output as your archival copy.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with a separate file for each participant, there are several good remote-recording platforms. The important feature to look for is local/double-ended recording: each participant's microphone is captured on their own computer, rather than recording the compressed audio stream coming across the internet.

Best options

Boomcaster is particularly interesting for your use case. It explicitly records each participant locally and produces a separate lossless WAV for each participant at 48 kHz/16-bit. It also progressively uploads the files and maintains cloud backups, which is useful for archival workflows. support.boomcaster.com

Riverside similarly creates a locally recorded high-quality track for every participant. Its raw audio download is uncompressed WAV, 16-bit linear PCM, at either 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. support.riverside.com

Zencastr is another strong choice: paid plans produce separate 16-bit/48 kHz WAV files for participants, with local recording so network problems don't degrade the master recordings. support.zencastr.com

SquadCast records each participant independently and locally, with 48 kHz/16-bit WAV as its high-quality local recording. Its cloud/network recording is separate and can be lower quality, so you'd want the local WAVs for archival purposes. squadcast.fm

Cleanfeed Pro is particularly attractive if you're doing audio-only interviews, oral histories, journalism, or archival conversations rather than video podcasts. Its multitrack mode produces separate WAVE files for each participant. cleanfeed.net

One important archival caveat

"Lossless" doesn't necessarily mean "archival maximum quality."

Most of these services currently give you 16-bit / 48 kHz PCM WAV. That's genuinely lossless and very good, but if you're establishing a serious long-term preservation master, I'd ideally want:

• WAV/BWF
• 48 kHz or 96 kHz
• 24-bit PCM
• one isolated file per microphone/participant
• no noise reduction, automatic leveling, EQ, dereverb, or AI processing applied to the master
• preservation of the original files before any editing or enhancement
• ideally local recording plus a second local backup

So, for example, Riverside's "Magic Audio" shouldn't be your archival master—keep the raw WAV and treat any enhanced version as a derivative. Its documentation distinguishes the raw WAV from its AI-enhanced WAV. support.riverside.com

My shortlist

If I were selecting specifically for an oral-history / interview archive, I'd investigate these in this order:

1. Boomcaster — very explicitly designed around lossless WAV, local capture, isolated tracks and backup.
2. Riverside — probably the best-known all-around option; excellent local recording and raw WAV per participant.
3. Zencastr — strong audio-first option with 48 kHz WAV.
4. SquadCast — similarly good double-ended WAV workflow.
5. Cleanfeed — my choice if you don't care about video and want a more audio-engineering-oriented workflow.

If you're doing serious archival work, there's another question I'd investigate before choosing: whether any of these can capture 24-bit/48 or 24-bit/96 kHz rather than 16-bit/48 kHz. That's potentially more important to your archival strategy than the brand of remote-recording platform. I can compare the current platforms specifically on bit depth, sample rate, WAV/BWF support, local-vs-cloud recording, backups, and pricing and identify the best one for a preservation-grade workflow.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with a separate file for each remote participant, several remote-recording platforms support exactly that.

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally on their own device, then uploads the recording, so the final audio isn't dependent on the quality of the live internet connection. Its high-quality participant tracks can be downloaded as WAV, and the tracks remain separate and synchronized. support.riverside.fm

It explicitly describes its audio as uncompressed 48 kHz WAV, which is a very sensible archival master format. riverside.fm

Riverside

2. Zencastr — excellent for audio-first work

Zencastr is particularly attractive if you're primarily doing interviews/oral histories rather than elaborate video production. Its local recording produces separate tracks per participant, with paid plans providing 16-bit/48 kHz WAV files. support.riverside.fmsupport.zencastr.com

Zencastr also says its WAV recordings are made locally, meaning a temporary internet dropout shouldn't degrade the master recording. zencastr.ghost.io

Zencastr

3. SquadCast — another strong archival option

SquadCast records each participant locally and provides separate WAV files, with local recordings at 48 kHz/16-bit. It also maintains cloud recordings as a backup, although those cloud recordings are network-dependent. squadcast.fm

SquadCast

What I'd use for an archive

For genuine archival work, I'd prioritize:

local capture → uncompressed PCM WAV → separate participant tracks → retain the original untouched files

Of the three, Riverside and Zencastr are the ones I'd investigate first. They're both explicitly built around local, separate-track recording rather than simply recording the VoIP stream.

One important distinction: "WAV" doesn't automatically mean archival-quality. WAV is a container; you want uncompressed PCM, ideally at least 48 kHz/24-bit if the platform and participants' hardware support it. The platforms above generally advertise 16-bit/48 kHz, which is lossless but gives you less headroom than 24-bit.

If you're doing oral-history/interview archival rather than podcast production, I can also compare these against dedicated field/remote-recording workflows (including options where each participant records locally with much higher bit depth and you use Zoom/Meet/etc. only for communication).

Yes. If your requirement is local recording + a separate lossless WAV file for every participant, there are several good options.

My picks

1. Riverside — best overall for archival recording

Riverside records each participant locally and produces a raw, uncompressed WAV track. The raw audio is 16-bit linear PCM at either 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. It also provides aligned WAV tracks, which can make multitrack post-production easier. support.riverside.com

Riverside

For an archive, I particularly like that you can retain the raw audio rather than an AI-enhanced or otherwise processed version.

2. Zencastr — excellent and simple

Zencastr records participants locally and gives you separate tracks, with paid plans providing 16-bit 48 kHz WAV. Its documentation specifically describes the WAV recordings as high-quality and separate for each participant. support.zencastr.com

Zencastr

3. SquadCast — strong alternative

SquadCast records each participant locally in separate tracks and supports WAV/PCM recording. Its current documentation specifies 48 kHz/16-bit for local recordings. help.descript.com

SquadCast

One important archival distinction

For archival purposes, I'd prioritize raw local PCM/WAV tracks over merely having a "high-quality" recording. You want something like:

Participant A → 48 kHz / 24-bit or 16-bit linear PCM WAV
Participant B → 48 kHz / 24-bit or 16-bit linear PCM WAV

rather than a compressed Opus/AAC recording of the call.

Also, 16-bit vs. 24-bit matters less than local, uncompressed capture for a spoken-word archive. If you're recording music, field recordings, or anything where maximum dynamic range matters, I'd specifically look for a service supporting 24-bit WAV.

One caveat: the three services above currently document 16-bit WAV. If your archival standard specifically requires 24-bit WAV, I would narrow the search further rather than assume that a service's "lossless" claim means 24-bit.

If you tell me whether this is spoken interviews/oral history, music, meetings, or video interviews, I can give you a more archival-focused comparison—including 24-bit support, sample rates, file retention/download policies, backup behavior, and whether the raw files are altered by processing.

Yes. If archival-quality, lossless audio per participant is the requirement, you want a platform that records locally on each participant's device and then uploads the resulting WAV, rather than merely recording the conference stream.

The strongest options I found are:

1. Riverside — my first choice

Riverside

Riverside records each participant's audio locally, producing a separate raw WAV track for each person. Its current documentation specifies linear PCM, 16-bit WAV, at 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. support.riverside.com

That makes it particularly appropriate for an archive because you're retaining the original, uncompressed participant recording, rather than a processed mix.

It also progressively uploads the locally recorded material, which provides some protection against a participant's connection failing during the session. riverside.fm

Important archival distinction: download the Raw audio WAV, not "Magic Audio" or another processed/enhanced version. The raw WAV is the closest thing to the original capture. support.riverside.com

2. Zencastr — also excellent

Zencastr

Zencastr is particularly straightforward if you primarily care about audio. Its current product documentation specifies 16-bit/48 kHz WAV, separate tracks for participants, and local recording. zencastr.com

Its help documentation confirms that paid plans provide 16-bit 48 kHz WAV files and that each participant gets a separate audio file. zencastr.comsupport.zencastr.comsquadcast.fm

For an audio-only oral-history/interview archive, I'd seriously consider Zencastr.

3. SquadCast — worth considering

SquadCast

SquadCast also records participants individually at the source. Its documentation specifies 48 kHz / 16-bit local recordings and WAV availability, with separate files for each participant. squadcast.fm

SquadCast is now part of the broader Descript ecosystem; its current documentation explicitly describes a lossless audio option producing a separate WAV for each participant. help.descript.com

For archival purposes, I'd rank them

Riverside ≈ Zencastr > SquadCast

But the choice depends on what you're preserving:

• Oral histories / interviews, audio-first: Zencastr
• Interviews where video is also important: Riverside
• Already using Descript: SquadCast
• Maximum archival integrity: any of these is vastly preferable to Zoom/Teams-style conference recording, provided you retain the raw participant WAVs.

One subtle but important point: "WAV" doesn't automatically mean archival-quality. WAV is a container; what matters is the underlying PCM encoding, bit depth, sample rate, and whether the software applies processing. For an archival master, I'd target uncompressed PCM WAV, 24-bit/48 kHz or 24-bit/96 kHz if available. The three platforms above generally top out at 16-bit/48 kHz for their remote captures, so if you're doing a formal long-term sound archive, that limitation is worth considering.

If you tell me whether this is for oral histories, music/performance, documentary interviews, or general conversations, I can also identify remote-recording software that supports 24-bit WAV per participant—which is a more demanding and interesting shortlist.