ChatGPT answers, unedited

Yes. For archival-quality remote recording, the key feature to look for is local recording on each participant's device, followed by upload of the original files. That avoids having the archival master depend on the compressed audio used for the live call.

The main options that currently fit are:

Riverside

Riverside records each participant locally and provides separate high-quality tracks. Its documentation specifies uncompressed 48 kHz WAV for participant tracks, with the recordings progressively uploaded while the session is underway. Riverside Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm

For an archive, this is attractive because you're getting an actual WAV master from each participant rather than extracting audio from the conference stream.

Zencastr

Zencastr also records locally and produces a separate file for every participant. Its current documentation says paid plans provide 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV files, while the service also describes 48 kHz WAV recording on its current recording page. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

One nice archival property is that Zencastr distinguishes the raw separate tracks from its processed/enhanced tracks. For archival masters, I'd retain the raw tracks and treat any noise reduction, leveling, etc. as derivative files. Zencastr Help Center

SquadCast

SquadCast is another option supporting separate WAV recordings. Its documentation describes separate studio-quality audio/video tracks and automatic local/cloud backups. SquadCast Riverside

squadcast.fm

For archival purposes, I'd pay attention to more than "WAV"

If you're building a genuine long-term archive, I'd specifically verify these properties:

• Local capture: Each participant's microphone is recorded locally rather than recording the compressed conference stream.
• Uncompressed PCM: WAV/PCM rather than MP3/AAC/Opus.
• Sample rate: Prefer 48 kHz for interviews, oral histories, video, and general media archives.
• Bit depth: 24-bit is preferable when the service supports it; 16-bit/48 kHz is still lossless and perfectly usable, but gives you less headroom for subsequent processing.
• Original/raw files: Preserve the untouched participant files before applying noise reduction, compression, normalization, or other processing.
• Independent tracks: Keep each participant's original track rather than only a mixed stereo file.
• Progressive upload: Particularly important for long interviews—the recording should be uploading during the session rather than relying on one huge upload at the end.
• Metadata: Keep the recording date, participant, microphone/interface information if available, session ID, and software/version alongside the files.

One important distinction: "lossless" doesn't mean "better microphone quality." A WAV faithfully preserves whatever microphone and room the participant captured. It doesn't remove room noise or compensate for a bad microphone.

For a serious archive, I'd also consider having participants make a local backup recording in their DAW/recorder simultaneously when practical. That gives you a second independent master in case the browser-based recording fails.

If you tell me how many participants you typically have, whether you need video, and whether 24-bit WAV is a requirement, I can narrow this down to the platforms that actually meet your archival specification.

For an archive, this is attractive because you're getting an actual WAV master from each participant rather than extracting audio from the conference stream.

Zencastr

Zencastr also records locally and produces a separate file for every participant. Its current documentation says paid plans provide 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV files, while the service also describes 48 kHz WAV recording on its current recording page. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

One nice archival property is that Zencastr distinguishes the raw separate tracks from its processed/enhanced tracks. For archival masters, I'd retain the raw tracks and treat any noise reduction, leveling, etc. as derivative files. Zencastr Help Center

SquadCast

SquadCast is another option supporting separate WAV recordings. Its documentation describes separate studio-quality audio/video tracks and automatic local/cloud backups.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an independent file for each participant, several remote-recording platforms fit that requirement.

For archival purposes

Riverside is worth a close look. It records each participant locally and produces a separate raw WAV track. Riverside specifies linear PCM, 16-bit audio at 44.1 or 48 kHz, with the participant's local recording used rather than the audio that was transmitted over the internet. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm

Zencastr similarly records locally and creates separate participant files. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans, while its current product page advertises up to 48 kHz WAV. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

SquadCast records participants locally in separate tracks and makes those available as WAV or MP3; its documentation specifies 48 kHz/16-bit local recordings. SquadCast SquadCast

squadcast.fm

Cleanfeed is particularly interesting if you don't care about video. Its multitrack system records each track as a separate high-quality WAVE file, which can be downloaded as a bundle. Cleanfeed

cleanfeed.net

One important archival distinction

For an archive, I'd specifically choose raw/unprocessed WAV tracks, rather than a platform's "enhanced," "Magic Audio," noise-reduced, or mastered tracks. You want the original PCM capture so that future restoration/editing doesn't depend on today's processing algorithms.

Also preserve the original WAVs separately from your edited/mastered files. Ideally your archive would contain:

• session_metadata
• participant_01_raw.wav
• participant_02_raw.wav
• etc.
• the original session/project metadata
• checksums (e.g. SHA-256)
• a separate edited/master WAV for access/use

Of the options above, Riverside, Zencastr, and SquadCast all satisfy the core "local recording + separate lossless WAV per participant" requirement. Cleanfeed is especially compelling for an audio-only archival workflow.

If you tell me whether this is for oral-history interviews, podcasts, music, research interviews, or something else, I can also compare them specifically on sample rate/bit depth, upload reliability, file retention, guest workflow, pricing, and archival suitability.

Zencastr similarly records locally and creates separate participant files. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans, while its current product page advertises up to 48 kHz WAV. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

SquadCast records participants locally in separate tracks and makes those available as WAV or MP3; its documentation specifies 48 kHz/16-bit local recordings. SquadCast SquadCast

squadcast.fm

Cleanfeed is particularly interesting if you don't care about video. Its multitrack system records each track as a separate high-quality WAVE file, which can be downloaded as a bundle. cleanfeed.net

cleanfeed.net

One important archival distinction

For an archive, I'd specifically choose raw/unprocessed WAV tracks, rather than a platform's "enhanced," "Magic Audio," noise-reduced, or mastered tracks. You want the original PCM capture so that future restoration/editing doesn't depend on today's processing algorithms.

For archival-quality remote recording, you generally want a platform that does local capture on each participant’s device and delivers separate lossless files per person (rather than recording the compressed call stream). The strongest options are:

Best choices for archival purposes

• Highest fidelity: Capturly — 96 kHz/24-bit WAV is closer to traditional archival/studio capture standards. Capturly
• Best balance of quality, reliability, and workflow: Riverside — 48 kHz WAV per participant is more than adequate for most spoken-word archives. Riverside
• Broadcast/interview workflows: Boomcaster or Zencastr. Boomcaster Zencastr Help Center

Archival workflow recommendations

For long-term preservation, I would look for:

• Local recording enabled (not cloud-only capture)
• Individual mono WAV files per participant
• 48 kHz / 24-bit minimum for new recordings
• 96 kHz / 24-bit if you are preserving interviews, oral histories, music, or research material
• No automatic noise reduction, leveling, “voice enhancement,” or AI processing on the master files
• Keep: - original WAV masters
• session metadata (date, participants, microphones, settings)
• checksums (e.g., SHA-256) for integrity verification
• an unprocessed edit copy separate from the preservation master

For a serious archive (oral history, documentary interviews, institutional collections), I would generally avoid platforms that only provide compressed audio (MP3/AAC) even if they sound good in playback. The master should remain PCM WAV.

For archival-quality remote recording, you generally want local recording per participant, with each person's microphone captured on their own device and exported as PCM WAV (or another lossless format like FLAC). Avoid platforms that only record the mixed call stream or compressed codecs.

Here are the main options that support per-participant lossless (or effectively lossless) tracks:

Best choices for true archival work

Highest fidelity

• Capturly — if you specifically want 96 kHz / 24-bit WAV, it is among the strongest choices for preservation-oriented workflows. Capturly
• A self-hosted/local workflow — for institutional archives, consider running your own recorder or having contributors record locally with synchronized files rather than relying entirely on a SaaS platform.

Best balance of quality + reliability

• Riverside — mature workflow, easy for guests, separate WAV tracks, widely used by interviewers and podcasters. Riverside
• Boomcaster — aimed more at professional production workflows with ISO tracks. Boomcaster

Open-source / self-controlled option

• Tributary is an open-source remote recording system designed around local per-guest recording and separate tracks; it includes 48 kHz WAV capture. GitHub This is worth considering if long-term preservation, control, and avoiding vendor lock-in matter.

Archival settings I would target

For a serious archive:

• Format: WAV (BWF/WAVE if supported)
• Sample rate: 48 kHz minimum; 96 kHz if you have a preservation mandate
• Bit depth: 24-bit
• Tracks: one mono WAV per participant (not a mixed stereo file)
• Processing: disable noise suppression, auto-leveling, echo cancellation, and "enhancement" features during capture
• Microphones: require each participant to use headphones and a decent USB/XLR microphone
• Metadata: preserve participant name, date/time, microphone model, session ID, and consent records

One caveat: "lossless" only describes the file encoding. If the participant's mic signal is already processed by operating-system effects, browser processing, or AI noise removal, the WAV may preserve a processed signal rather than the original microphone capture. For archival collections, the cleanest approach is usually local WAV capture + minimal processing + checksum verification after upload.

For archival-quality remote recording, the key feature is local, double-ended recording: each participant’s microphone is captured on their own device and uploaded as an independent lossless file, rather than recording the compressed audio stream from a call. The tools below support WAV (or equivalent lossless) per participant tracks. Hilite

Best choices for archival purposes

• Highest-quality spoken-word archive: Capturly or Rebel Audio — higher bit depth/sample-rate options are useful if you want preservation masters. Capturly Rebel Audio
• Best balance of reliability and ease for interviews: Riverside.fm or Boomcaster — mature workflows, local capture, separate files. Riverside Boomcaster
• Audio-only archival interviews: Remotely.fm, Cleanfeed, or a local DAW workflow can be preferable if video is unnecessary. Remotely Hilite

For a true archive workflow, look for:

• Per-person isolated WAV files (not a mixed stereo file)
• 48 kHz minimum, preferably 24-bit PCM
• BWF/WAV metadata support if you need long-term preservation
• No automatic noise reduction, leveling, or “enhancement” applied to the master files
• Local recording + progressive upload
• A way to retain the original unprocessed files

For serious archival work (oral history, interviews, research collections), I would generally keep:

1. the original participant WAV files as the preservation master,
2. a synchronized editing session copy,
3. any cleaned/mixed versions as derivatives.

Yes. If your goal is archival-quality remote interviews, you want two things in particular:

1. Local recording at each participant's device — so the internet connection doesn't become part of the recording chain.
2. A separate uncompressed WAV file per participant — rather than one mixed recording.

The strongest options I found are:

1. riverside.com — probably the best fit

Riverside records each participant locally on their own device, then uploads the recording in the background. It provides each participant's recording as a separate track, with uncompressed WAV available for download. Its raw audio is 16-bit linear PCM at 44.1 or 48 kHz, depending on studio settings. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

For archival purposes, that's a particularly attractive architecture: if a guest's Wi-Fi deteriorates halfway through an interview, the locally captured WAV isn't degraded by that network problem. Riverside

Riverside currently supports up to 10 recorded participants (host + 9 guests). Riverside

I'd choose this if: you want the simplest experience for nontechnical interview subjects while retaining individual archival masters.

2. squadcast.fm

SquadCast likewise records participants locally and individually, continuously uploads the files, and lets the host download the individual recordings as WAV. Their documentation specifies 48 kHz / 16-bit for local recordings. SquadCast SquadCast

It supports up to 10 people total (host + 9 guests). SquadCast

I'd choose this if: you're primarily doing podcast/interview recording and want a workflow very similar to Riverside.

3. cleanfeed.net

Cleanfeed is particularly interesting if you don't need video. Its Pro tier supports multitrack recording with an isolated track for every guest, and its documentation specifically says the tracks are recorded as high-quality WAVE files, with each track saved separately. Cleanfeed Cleanfeed

It is much more audio/broadcast-oriented than the typical video podcast platforms.

I'd choose this if: you're building an audio-first archival workflow and care more about audio engineering than video/podcast-production features.

For archival work, I'd rank them

Riverside ≈ SquadCast > Cleanfeed, if you want something that a general public interviewee can use with minimal technical assistance.

But there's an important distinction: "WAV" doesn't automatically mean "archival master." For preservation, I'd specifically want:

• PCM WAV rather than MP3/AAC
• 48 kHz or preferably 96 kHz if the service supports it
• 24-bit rather than 16-bit, if available
• Individual participant tracks
• Raw/unprocessed tracks, rather than AI-enhanced/noise-reduced versions
• Local recording at the participant's end
• A way to recover the local file if the upload fails
• Stable metadata/file naming and checksums for your archive

For example, Riverside's raw WAV is currently 16-bit, so while it is genuinely uncompressed and quite suitable for archival interview material, it isn't the same thing as a 24-bit/96-kHz archival master. Riverside Help Center

If this is for a serious institutional archive, oral-history project, or research collection, I'd go one step further and compare the actual recording specifications and preservation workflow of these services before choosing. I can make you a more detailed table of Riverside vs SquadCast vs Cleanfeed vs Zencastr vs Zoom vs Dolby.io, including sample rate, bit depth, WAV/FLAC availability, local-vs-cloud recording, recovery behavior, maximum participants, and whether the raw files can be retained independently of the service.

Riverside currently supports up to 10 recorded participants (host + 9 guests). Riverside

I'd choose this if: you want the simplest experience for nontechnical interview subjects while retaining individual archival masters.

2. squadcast.fm

SquadCast likewise records participants locally and individually, continuously uploads the files, and lets the host download the individual recordings as WAV. Their documentation specifies 48 kHz / 16-bit for local recordings. SquadCast SquadCast

It supports up to 10 people total (host + 9 guests). SquadCast

I'd choose this if: you're primarily doing podcast/interview recording and want a workflow very similar to Riverside.

3. cleanfeed.net

Cleanfeed is particularly interesting if you don't need video. Its Pro tier supports multitrack recording with an isolated track for every guest, and its documentation specifically says the tracks are recorded as high-quality WAVE files, with each track saved separately. cleanfeed.net cleanfeed.net

It is much more audio/broadcast-oriented than the typical video podcast platforms.

I'd choose this if: you're building an audio-first archival workflow and care more about audio engineering than video/podcast-production features.

For archival work, I'd rank them

Riverside ≈ SquadCast > Cleanfeed, if you want something that a general public interviewee can use with minimal technical assistance.

But there's an important distinction: "WAV" doesn't automatically mean "archival master." For preservation, I'd specifically want:

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an independent file for each participant, there are several good options. The key feature to look for is local recording: each participant's microphone is recorded on their own computer/device rather than recording the compressed call stream.

Best options

Riverside is particularly compelling for archival work. Its "Raw audio" track is an uncompressed WAV, recorded locally on each participant's device, using linear PCM at 16-bit and 44.1 or 48 kHz. Each participant gets an independent track. Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm

Zencastr is another strong choice. It records participants locally and produces separate tracks. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans, while its current pricing page advertises 48 kHz WAV recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

SquadCast likewise records each participant locally in separate tracks and makes WAV available for download. Its documentation specifies 48 kHz/16-bit local recordings. SquadCast SquadCast

squadcast.fm

For actual archival preservation

I'd rank them roughly:

1. Riverside — best overall if you want a polished remote-recording workflow plus genuinely uncompressed individual WAV masters.
2. Zencastr — excellent if your workflow is primarily audio/podcast/interview recording; 48 kHz WAV and separate tracks are straightforward.
3. SquadCast — also technically appropriate, especially if you already use its ecosystem.

One important distinction: WAV doesn't automatically mean "archival quality." For preservation, you want something like linear PCM WAV, 24-bit if the platform supports it, at 48 or 96 kHz, with no noise reduction, leveling, AI enhancement, or other processing applied to the master. Riverside's documented raw track is 16-bit, for example, so it is lossless but not necessarily the maximum archival specification. Riverside Help Center

If you're archiving oral histories, interviews, research recordings, or historical material rather than podcasts, I'd also look specifically at whether any service can capture 24-bit WAV, because that changes my recommendation.

Zencastr is another strong choice. It records participants locally and produces separate tracks. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans, while its current pricing page advertises 48 kHz WAV recording.

Yes. If archival-quality, lossless audio with one file per participant is the requirement, there are several good remote-recording platforms.

Best options

1. Riverside — my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally on their own device, then uploads the recording while the session is happening. You can download each participant's raw audio as an uncompressed 48 kHz WAV, independently of the quality of the internet connection. Riverside Help Center Riverside

That's particularly attractive for archival work because you're preserving the raw participant tracks, rather than recording a compressed Zoom/Meet-style mix.

riverside.fm

2. Zencastr

Zencastr is also very well suited to this. It records locally and produces separate tracks for each participant. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV recording, with the WAV files available on paid plans according to its help documentation. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

One nice archival property is that the participant's recording is retained locally in the browser as a backup while recording. Zencastr Help Center

zencastr.com

3. SquadCast

SquadCast likewise records participants locally in separate tracks and automatically uploads those recordings to its cloud. It supports downloading the individual recordings as WAV files. SquadCast SquadCast

squadcast.fm

For serious archival work

I'd rank them:

Riverside ≈ Zencastr > SquadCast

But there's an important distinction: WAV doesn't automatically mean "archival master." A remote-recording service can only preserve what the participant's microphone/interface actually captures. For an archival workflow I'd want:

• Uncompressed PCM WAV
• 48 kHz minimum, preferably 24-bit if the service/input path supports it
• One isolated track per participant
• Local recording rather than recording the compressed call stream
• Automatic/continuous upload as a backup
• Raw/unprocessed tracks retained, rather than only AI-enhanced/noise-reduced versions
• A downloadable copy stored independently of the service

For example, Riverside explicitly distinguishes its raw high-quality participant tracks from its processed/edited outputs. Riverside Help Center Zencastr similarly distinguishes its raw separate tracks from its enhanced tracks. Zencastr Help Center

If your goal is genuinely long-term preservation rather than podcast production, I'd lean toward Riverside or Zencastr and keep the original WAVs outside the platform as your archival masters.

If you tell me whether you're recording interviews/oral histories, music, meetings, or something like historical research, I can also compare these against more specialized options (including 32-bit float, 96 kHz, and fully unprocessed recording) and identify the best archival workflow.

That's particularly attractive for archival work because you're preserving the raw participant tracks, rather than recording a compressed Zoom/Meet-style mix.

riverside.fm

2. Zencastr

Zencastr is also very well suited to this. It records locally and produces separate tracks for each participant. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV recording, with the WAV files available on paid plans according to its help documentation. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

One nice archival property is that the participant's recording is retained locally in the browser as a backup while recording. Zencastr Help Center

zencastr.com

3. SquadCast

SquadCast likewise records participants locally in separate tracks and automatically uploads those recordings to its cloud. It supports downloading the individual recordings as WAV files. squadcast.fm squadcast.fm

squadcast.fm

For serious archival work

I'd rank them:

Riverside ≈ Zencastr > SquadCast

But there's an important distinction: WAV doesn't automatically mean "archival master." A remote-recording service can only preserve what the participant's microphone/interface actually captures. For an archival workflow I'd want:

Yes. If archival-quality audio is the priority, you want a platform that records each participant locally on their own device and uploads the resulting uncompressed WAV rather than recording the internet call itself.

Best options

1. Riverside — my first choice

Riverside records each participant's audio locally and provides a raw WAV track for every participant. Its raw audio is uncompressed linear PCM, at 16-bit depth and 44.1 or 48 kHz, depending on the studio settings. Riverside Help Center

That makes it particularly appropriate for an archive because you can preserve the original participant tracks rather than an edited/mixed master.

riverside.fm

2. Zencastr — excellent alternative

Zencastr likewise records locally and produces separate files for each participant. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit 48 kHz WAV recording, with separate tracks per participant. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

One particularly nice archival property is that the recording isn't dependent on the quality of the internet connection: the participant's device captures the audio locally and progressively uploads it afterward. Zencastr Help Center

zencastr.com

3. Descript / SquadCast

Descript's current recording system can generate lossless WAV files for each participant. Its September 2025 release notes specifically describe a setting that generates lossless audio for all participants, including a separate audio-only WAV when recording video. Descript Feedback

descript.com

For true archival use, I'd do this

I'd choose Riverside or Zencastr, and preserve the raw WAV tracks exactly as downloaded, rather than using their AI enhancement/noise reduction features as your archival master.

In particular:

• Archive: original per-person WAV files
• Do not archive only: the mixed podcast/edited output
• Keep: original sample rate and bit depth
• Create separately: an edited/master WAV or FLAC for distribution
• Retain: session metadata, participant names, recording date, microphone/interface information if available
• Back up: at least two geographically separate copies

One important distinction: WAV is a container, not inherently a guarantee of losslessness. For archival purposes, you want PCM WAV, which Riverside explicitly specifies for its raw audio. Riverside Help Center

If you're doing something more demanding than podcast interviews—e.g. oral-history archives, research interviews, music, documentary field recordings, or legal/deposition recordings—I can also compare the major remote platforms specifically on 24-bit/32-bit float support, 48/96 kHz, sync accuracy, isolated room tone, file provenance, local backup behavior, and archival suitability.

That makes it particularly appropriate for an archive because you can preserve the original participant tracks rather than an edited/mixed master.

riverside.fm

2. Zencastr — excellent alternative

Zencastr likewise records locally and produces separate files for each participant. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit 48 kHz WAV recording, with separate tracks per participant. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

One particularly nice archival property is that the recording isn't dependent on the quality of the internet connection: the participant's device captures the audio locally and progressively uploads it afterward. Zencastr Help Center

zencastr.com

3. Descript / SquadCast

Descript's current recording system can generate lossless WAV files for each participant. Its September 2025 release notes specifically describe a setting that generates lossless audio for all participants, including a separate audio-only WAV when recording video.

Yes. For archival-quality remote recording, you want a platform that does local recording on each participant's device + separate uncompressed WAV tracks. That avoids having the Internet connection determine the recorded audio quality.

Best options

Riverside is particularly strong for archival work. Its raw audio is recorded locally for each participant and downloaded as an uncompressed WAV using linear PCM, 16-bit, at 44.1 or 48 kHz. It also provides aligned WAV tracks when needed, which is useful for preserving synchronization between participants. Riverside Help Center

riverside.com

Zencastr also fits your requirements very well. Its current recording system produces separate tracks for each participant, with WAV recording available at up to 48 kHz. Zencastr specifically says recording happens locally on the participant's device, protecting the recording from Internet dropouts. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

For true archival preservation

I'd prioritize:

1. Riverside — best if you want a polished, general-purpose remote studio with robust raw-track handling.
2. Zencastr — excellent if this is primarily an audio/oral-history/interview workflow.
3. SquadCast — worth considering, particularly if its workflow/features fit your production setup.

One important distinction: WAV doesn't automatically mean archival-quality. For preservation, I'd specifically look for linear PCM, 48 kHz, 24-bit if offered. Riverside's documented raw tracks are currently 16-bit PCM, so if your archival specification requires 24-bit, I'd verify that before choosing it. Riverside Help Center

Also, don't use the mixed/processed output as your archival master. Download and retain the original raw WAV from each participant, plus the metadata/session information. Zencastr, for example, distinguishes its raw separate tracks from its separately processed/enhanced tracks. Zencastr Help Center

If you tell me whether this is for oral histories, interviews, music, podcasting, legal/academic records, or something else, I can narrow this down and compare Riverside vs. Zencastr vs. SquadCast specifically for long-term archival preservation.

Yes. For archival-quality remote recording, the key feature to look for is local recording on each participant's device + isolated tracks + uncompressed WAV, rather than recording the compressed video-call stream.

The strongest options I found are:

1. Zencastr — probably my first choice

Zencastr records each participant locally, then uploads their individual recording, so a bad internet connection doesn't turn your master recording into a compressed/garbled stream. It provides a separate audio file for each participant. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV, and its current pricing page lists 48 kHz WAV recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Zencastr

zencastr.com

For archival work, I particularly like that the raw separate tracks are distinct from Zencastr's enhanced tracks. You can retain the raw WAVs as your archival masters and make processed copies for production. Zencastr Help Center

2. SquadCast — also excellent

SquadCast records participants locally as separate tracks and automatically uploads them. Its documentation specifies 48 kHz / 16-bit WAV, with WAV files available for each participant. SquadCast SquadCast

squadcast.fm

One nice archival feature is its progressive uploading/backups: the local recordings are preserved while files are uploaded, reducing the risk that an internet failure destroys the session. SquadCast

3. Riverside

Riverside also uses local recording and produces separate tracks for participants, with uncompressed audio and recording up to 48 kHz. Riverside Wikipedia

riverside.fm

For actual archival preservation

I'd prioritize the platforms roughly like this:

Zencastr ≈ SquadCast > Riverside

But the more important distinction is what you're archiving. For preservation, I'd configure the workflow so that:

• Each participant supplies an individual WAV
• Recording happens locally, not from the conference-call stream
• You retain the raw/unprocessed WAV, not an AI-enhanced/noise-reduced version
• Prefer 48 kHz / 24-bit if the service actually offers it; 16-bit/48 kHz is perfectly respectable but isn't my first choice for a new archival master
• Keep the original files untouched and make processing/editing copies
• Have participants use a good microphone/interface and headphones
• Ideally have a second local backup at the participant's end

One caveat: WAV does not automatically mean "archival-quality." A 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless, but the microphone, preamp, room acoustics, clipping, and browser/device audio path still determine what information actually gets captured.

If you're doing serious oral-history, interview, documentary, or research archiving, I can also compare the available services specifically on 24-bit support, sample rate, browser/device limitations, drift handling, metadata, file retention, and whether the raw WAV can be downloaded without platform processing.

zencastr.com

For archival work, I particularly like that the raw separate tracks are distinct from Zencastr's enhanced tracks. You can retain the raw WAVs as your archival masters and make processed copies for production. Zencastr Help Center

2. SquadCast — also excellent

SquadCast records participants locally as separate tracks and automatically uploads them. Its documentation specifies 48 kHz / 16-bit WAV, with WAV files available for each participant. squadcast.fm squadcast.fm

squadcast.fm

One nice archival feature is its progressive uploading/backups: the local recordings are preserved while files are uploaded, reducing the risk that an internet failure destroys the session. squadcast.fm

3. Riverside

Riverside also uses local recording and produces separate tracks for participants, with uncompressed audio and recording up to 48 kHz.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an isolated file for each participant, you want a platform that records locally at each participant's device, rather than simply recording the compressed audio stream from the call.

Best options

Zencastr is particularly attractive for archival work. It records each participant separately and currently advertises 48 kHz WAV, with local recording so the internet connection doesn't determine the quality of the master recording. Zencastr Zencastr

zencastr.com

SquadCast likewise records each participant locally as a separate track and provides 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV files. It also progressively uploads the recordings, giving you cloud backups while the session is underway. SquadCast SquadCast

squadcast.fm

For true archival purposes

I'd rank the requirements this way:

1. Local recording per participant — most important. The actual microphone signal is captured locally rather than being limited by the compressed conference stream.
2. WAV/PCM rather than MP3/AAC — preserves the original samples without lossy compression.
3. Separate tracks — essential if you want to preserve each speaker independently.
4. 48 kHz minimum — a sensible archival/interview standard, particularly if video is involved.
5. Reliable local + cloud backup — important because archival recording isn't just about audio quality; you don't want a browser crash to destroy the only copy.
6. Don't use AI enhancement/noise reduction on your master — keep the raw WAV as the preservation copy and make processed versions separately.

One subtle but important point: "lossless WAV" doesn't mean the recording is inherently high fidelity. A 16-bit/48 kHz WAV preserves the microphone/interface output faithfully, but the quality still depends heavily on the microphone, preamp, room, and participant's recording setup.

For an archival workflow, I'd therefore keep:

Original per-person WAV → immutable archival master → separate working copy → edited/processed versions

Of the options above, Zencastr and SquadCast are the clearest fits if your primary criterion is straightforward per-participant lossless WAV capture. Zencastr's current documentation explicitly describes separate participant WAV files and local recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

If you tell me how many participants, whether you need video, desired bit depth (16/24/32-bit), and whether this is interviews/oral histories, music, meetings, etc., I can narrow this down to the best archival setup—including platforms that support 24-bit or 32-bit WAV, which may be preferable for a serious preservation workflow.

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

Best options

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

riverside.fm records each participant locally and gives you 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. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

That's particularly attractive for archival work because you're retaining the actual participant recording rather than recording the compressed audio coming through the call.

2. Zencastr — excellent alternative

zencastr.com records participants locally and provides a separate track for each person. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV, with the recording captured locally rather than from the VoIP stream. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

It also retains local backups in the participant's browser storage, which is a useful resilience feature for important recordings. Zencastr Help Center

3. SquadCast

squadcast.fm also records each participant independently and locally. Its local recordings are 48 kHz/16-bit, and the resulting individual tracks are available as WAV or MP3. SquadCast SquadCast

For serious archival work

I'd rank them roughly:

Riverside ≈ Zencastr > SquadCast

But the important distinction isn't really the nominal WAV specification—all three can give you 48-kHz/16-bit WAV. The bigger archival questions are:

• Is the WAV genuinely the raw local microphone capture?
• Is it uncompressed PCM, rather than a WAV wrapper around a compressed codec?
• Can you download the original/raw tracks, rather than only an AI-enhanced or processed version?
• Does each participant get a separate track?
• What happens if someone's internet connection drops?
• Can you retain the original files independently of the service?

For an archive, I'd preserve the raw/unprocessed WAV tracks as your master files and treat noise reduction, leveling, AI enhancement, etc. as derived files. Riverside explicitly distinguishes raw WAV from its processed "Magic Audio" WAV, while Zencastr similarly distinguishes raw separate tracks from enhanced tracks. Riverside Help Center Zencastr Help Center

One caveat: 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless, but it isn't the highest possible archival specification. If you're doing institutional/long-term preservation, you may want 24-bit/48 or 96 kHz PCM. That's a different requirement and significantly narrows the field.

If you tell me whether this is for oral-history interviews, podcasts, music/performance, legal/research interviews, or general media preservation, I can compare the available platforms specifically for 24-bit/96 kHz, WAV/BWF, metadata, file ownership/export, and long-term archival workflow.

2. Zencastr — excellent alternative

zencastr.com records participants locally and provides a separate track for each person. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV, with the recording captured locally rather than from the VoIP stream. support.zencastr.com zencastr.com

It also retains local backups in the participant's browser storage, which is a useful resilience feature for important recordings. support.zencastr.com

3. SquadCast

squadcast.fm also records each participant independently and locally. Its local recordings are 48 kHz/16-bit, and the resulting individual tracks are available as WAV or MP3.

For serious archival work

I'd rank them roughly:

Riverside ≈ Zencastr > SquadCast

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an independent file for every participant, there are a few strong options.

Best options

• Riverside — Probably my first choice for archival work. It locally records each participant and produces separate uncompressed WAV tracks, typically 16-bit at 44.1 or 48 kHz. The local recording means the Internet connection doesn't determine the quality of the master track. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

riverside.com

• Zencastr — Also an excellent fit. It records participants locally and provides separate tracks per speaker, with 48 kHz WAV recording available. Its current documentation also describes local backups and separate downloadable WAV files. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

Riverside vs. Zencastr for archival recording

One particularly useful Riverside feature for archival workflows is that it distinguishes raw WAV from processed/enhanced audio. The raw track is 16-bit linear PCM, so you can preserve the original recording rather than relying on an AI/noise-reduced version. Riverside Help Center

Zencastr likewise distinguishes its raw separate tracks from its enhanced tracks, so you can retain the untouched recording as your archival master. Zencastr Help Center

What I'd choose

For a serious archive, I'd lean Riverside if you want the most explicit archival/master-track workflow. I'd choose Zencastr if you want something simpler and potentially more economical.

More importantly, configure either service so that you download and retain the original per-participant WAV files, rather than only an exported mixed WAV. A mixed WAV is lossless, but it has already combined the participants and therefore loses the ability to independently reconstruct/edit each person's original track.

If you're archiving oral-history interviews, podcasts, research interviews, lectures, or something similar, I can also give you a shortlist of the best 5–10 remote-recording platforms specifically for long-term preservation, including sample rate/bit depth, local-vs-cloud recording, sync reliability, maximum participants, pricing, and whether they retain the original WAV files.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an isolated file for every participant, there are several good options. The key feature to look for is local recording: each participant’s microphone is captured on their own computer and the resulting file is uploaded afterward, rather than recording the compressed call stream.

Best options

1. Riverside — probably the easiest choice

Riverside creates a separate raw WAV track for every participant, recorded locally on their device. Its raw audio is uncompressed linear PCM, 16-bit, at either 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. Riverside Help Center

That's a particularly good fit for archival work because you're not preserving a compressed Zoom-style stream—you get the participant's locally captured microphone recording.

riverside.fm

2. Boomcaster — very audio/archival oriented

Boomcaster is particularly interesting for your use case. It explicitly records isolated lossless WAV files locally for each participant, which you can download as split tracks. Boomcaster Knowledgebase Boomcaster Knowledgebase

If your project is primarily audio rather than video, I'd put Boomcaster near the top of the list.

boomcaster.com

3. Zencastr — very good and simple

Zencastr records each participant separately and its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans. The recording happens locally, so network problems during the conversation don't degrade the resulting master file. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

Its current product page also advertises up to 48 kHz WAV and separate tracks per speaker. Zencastr

zencastr.com

For serious archival work, I'd rank them

Boomcaster ≈ Riverside > Zencastr > SessionLinkPRO, assuming your main requirement is a clean, isolated, lossless master per person.

One important distinction: "high quality" isn't necessarily "lossless." For archival purposes I'd specifically require:

• WAV/BWF or another PCM format
• No lossy codec such as MP3/AAC/Opus for the master
• Individual participant tracks
• Local recording at the participant
• Ideally 48 kHz / 24-bit if the platform supports it
• Automatic upload plus a local backup
• Preservation of the original files without platform processing/noise reduction

One caveat: the major browser-based platforms I found commonly top out at 16-bit WAV, rather than 24-bit. Riverside, for example, explicitly specifies 16-bit linear PCM. Riverside Help Center If you're doing true long-term archival recording—especially oral history, field interviews, music, or material where preservation is the primary objective—I would investigate a workflow where each participant records 24-bit/48 kHz WAV locally in a DAW, while using one of these platforms purely for the remote connection.

If you tell me whether this is for oral history/interviews, podcasts, academic research, or music/voice recording, I can give you a more rigorous comparison—including 24-bit support, sample rates, BWF metadata, file ownership/storage, backups, and which one is safest for a decades-long archive.

That's a particularly good fit for archival work because you're not preserving a compressed Zoom-style stream—you get the participant's locally captured microphone recording.

riverside.fm

2. Boomcaster — very audio/archival oriented

Boomcaster is particularly interesting for your use case. It explicitly records isolated lossless WAV files locally for each participant, which you can download as split tracks. Boomcaster Knowledgebase Boomcaster Knowledgebase

If your project is primarily audio rather than video, I'd put Boomcaster near the top of the list.

boomcaster.com

3. Zencastr — very good and simple

Zencastr records each participant separately and its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans. The recording happens locally, so network problems during the conversation don't degrade the resulting master file.

Its current product page also advertises up to 48 kHz WAV and separate tracks per speaker.

For archival-quality remote recording, you generally want local recording per participant (each person’s microphone is captured on their own device) and export as PCM WAV (ideally 24-bit, 48 kHz or higher). Avoid platforms that only record the conference mix, because internet compression and packet loss can become part of the archive.

Here are the main options that support separate lossless tracks:

Best choices for true archival use

Highest confidence / professional workflow

• Riverside — good balance of reliability, guest simplicity, and editing workflow. Riverside
• Boomcaster — aimed more toward broadcast-style recording and reliability. Boomcaster

If you want maximum audio fidelity

Look for:

• 24-bit WAV
• 48 kHz minimum
• 96 kHz option if you are preserving interviews, music, field recordings, or material where future processing matters
• No noise reduction, auto-leveling, echo cancellation, or AI enhancement applied to the archival master

Among the options above, Capturly’s desktop mode advertises 96 kHz / 24-bit WAV, which is closer to traditional studio archival capture. Capturly

For serious archives, I would use this workflow

1. Record:

• Individual WAV file per participant
• 48 kHz / 24-bit minimum
• Headphones required for guests
• External USB/XLR microphones where possible
• Preserve:

• Original WAV files untouched
• Session metadata (date, participants, equipment, software version)
• A checksum (e.g., SHA-256) for each file
• Create derivatives:

• MP3/AAC for listening copies
• Edited mixes for publication
• Keep the raw WAV multitracks as the master

One caveat: “lossless” does not always mean “archival.” A 48 kHz/16-bit WAV from a laptop microphone is technically lossless, but the capture chain may still be low quality. For archives, the microphone, room, and gain staging matter as much as the file format.

If this is for oral history, journalism, legal records, music sessions, or institutional archives, the best choice can differ.

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an isolated file for each remote participant, you want a platform that records locally at each participant's device rather than simply recording the compressed video call.

The strongest options I found are:

1. zencastr.com — my first choice

Zencastr is particularly well suited to what you're describing. It records each participant locally and produces a separate audio file for each participant. Its current documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV, and the recordings are isolated rather than being a compressed recording of the conference call. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

That's important for archival purposes: if someone's internet connection deteriorates, the recording isn't being reconstructed from the degraded call stream. The participant's local recording continues independently and is uploaded afterward. Zencastr Help Center

Zencastr also distinguishes between the raw separate tracks and its processed/enhanced tracks. For archival masters, I'd retain the raw WAVs and treat any noise reduction, leveling, mastering, etc. as derivative files. Zencastr Help Center

2. squadcast.fm — excellent archival workflow

SquadCast likewise records participants locally in separate tracks and progressively uploads those recordings to the cloud. It specifically supports downloading the individual recordings as WAV, with its documented local recording format being 48 kHz / 16-bit. SquadCast SquadCast

One nice archival feature is the redundancy: the source recording exists locally while uploads happen progressively, rather than relying exclusively on the internet connection. SquadCast

3. riverside.fm — best if you also need video

Riverside records locally and provides separate tracks for participants. Its current capabilities include up to 48 kHz / 16-bit audio, with separate audio/video tracks. Riverside

I'd lean toward Riverside if you're archiving interviews with both audio and video, rather than choosing it solely for audio preservation.

What I would use for an actual archive

For preservation, I'd structure the workflow roughly like this:

Participant A → local WAV
Participant B → local WAV
Participant C → local WAV
↓
Original/unprocessed files preserved permanently
↓
Derivative files → edited/mastered version → MP3/AAC/etc.

The key distinction is don't archive only the final mixed track. Keeping the isolated WAV for every participant preserves your ability to reconstruct the conversation later, correct levels, remove individual noises, or create a new mix without degrading the original.

Also, 48 kHz / 24-bit would be preferable to 48 kHz / 16-bit for a new archival capture, if a platform offers it. Among the options above, the mainstream remote-recording platforms I found are generally documenting 16-bit/48 kHz rather than 24-bit capture. For genuinely long-term preservation where maximum fidelity is the goal, I'd therefore investigate whether your chosen platform can capture 24-bit, or have participants make a simultaneous local 24-bit recording in a DAW/recorder.

Bottom line: for your exact requirement, I'd start with Zencastr, with SquadCast as the closest alternative. Both give you the crucial combination of local recording + isolated participant WAVs, which is much more appropriate for archival capture than recording the output of Zoom/Meet/Teams. Zencastr Help Center SquadCast

If you tell me how many participants, whether you need video, desired bit depth/sample rate (e.g. 24-bit/48 kHz), and your approximate budget, I can narrow this down to the best 2–3 options and compare their archival workflows.

For archival-quality remote recording, you generally want a “double-ender” / local-recording system: each participant’s microphone is captured locally, saved as a separate file, then uploaded. This avoids VoIP compression and network dropouts. The key specs to look for are:

• Per-participant isolated tracks (not a mixed call recording)
• Lossless PCM WAV export (ideally 24-bit/48 kHz, though many services use 16-bit/48 kHz)
• Local capture on each participant’s device
• Progressive upload / recovery if a connection fails
• Stable file access for long-term archiving

Options that meet those criteria:

Best choices for archival work

Highest confidence / professional podcast workflow

• Riverside — strong ecosystem, easy for guests, good editor compatibility. riverside.fm
• Boomcaster — particularly aligned with broadcast-style workflows and isolated WAV delivery. www.boomcaster.com

Simpler interviews with nontechnical guests

• Zencastr or Adobe Podcast — easy browser-based joining and local capture. zencastr.compodcast.adobe.com

If you want maximum archival control

• Consider a workflow where you also have participants record locally in a DAW (for example, Audacity, Reaper, or Pro Tools) and use the remote platform only for communication/sync. A true archival master is usually kept as:
  • WAV PCM
  • 48 kHz
  • 24-bit if available
  • one file per microphone/source
  • embedded metadata + checksums
  • multiple backups

A note: “lossless” does not automatically mean “archival.” Some platforms provide 16-bit WAV, which is lossless but not the same headroom as a 24-bit production master. For long-term preservation, I’d prioritize 24-bit local WAV capture whenever possible.

Yes. If your goal is archival-quality remote interviews, where every participant produces their own uncompressed file rather than recording the mixed call, there are several good options.

Best options

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

Riverside records each participant locally on their own device, then uploads the recording progressively. This means a bad internet connection doesn't degrade the master audio. Its high-quality participant tracks can be downloaded as WAV, with Riverside specifically describing them as its highest-quality raw tracks. Riverside Help Center Riverside

For audio-only recording, Riverside can provide separate WAV tracks for each participant, and its documentation specifies 48 kHz lossless WAV. Riverside Help Center Riverside

riverside.fm

Why I'd favor it for an archive: you get the original participant tracks rather than a compressed conference-call mix, and you can preserve the raw WAVs as your archival masters.

2. Zencastr — excellent audio-first alternative

Zencastr also records locally and gives you separate audio files for each participant. Its current documentation says paid plans provide 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV recordings, while its current product page advertises 48 kHz WAV recording and separate tracks. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

One particularly useful archival feature is that Zencastr distinguishes the raw separate tracks from its enhanced tracks. The raw tracks have no enhancements applied, which is exactly what you'd generally want to retain as an archival master. Zencastr Help Center

3. SquadCast

SquadCast is another double-ender/local-recording platform and supports separate uncompressed WAV audio per participant. Riverside's comparison of the two describes both as producing locally recorded, separate WAV files. Riverside

I'd put it behind Riverside and Zencastr for a new archival workflow mainly because I'd want to verify the current exact sample-rate/bit-depth and plan restrictions before committing to a long-term collection.

What I'd choose for archival work

If you're building something like an oral-history/interview archive, I'd prioritize:

1. Local/double-ended recording — each person's microphone is captured locally.
2. Uncompressed PCM WAV — not MP3, AAC, Opus, etc.
3. Separate participant files — never rely solely on the mixed recording.
4. At least 48 kHz / 24-bit if available — although 16-bit/48 kHz is already lossless and perfectly legitimate for many archival applications.
5. Raw files without AI noise reduction or enhancement as your preservation masters.
6. Progressive cloud upload/backup so a participant's computer failure doesn't destroy the recording.
7. Stable metadata and file naming so the files remain intelligible years later.

One important distinction: "lossless" doesn't necessarily mean "archival master." A 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless relative to its digital recording, but if you're establishing a serious preservation workflow, I'd investigate whether the platform can capture 24-bit WAV and whether it applies any processing before delivering the raw track.

My shortlist would therefore be Riverside first, Zencastr second, and SquadCast third. Riverside and Zencastr are particularly compelling because their documentation explicitly describes the local, separate-track workflow and WAV output. Riverside Help Center Zencastr Help Center

If you tell me whether this is for oral history, music/interviews, journalism, academic research, or general personal archiving, I can also compare the platforms specifically on bit depth, sample rate, raw-vs-processed files, automatic backups, metadata, pricing, and preservation workflow.

riverside.fm

Why I'd favor it for an archive: you get the original participant tracks rather than a compressed conference-call mix, and you can preserve the raw WAVs as your archival masters.

2. Zencastr — excellent audio-first alternative

Zencastr also records locally and gives you separate audio files for each participant. Its current documentation says paid plans provide 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV recordings, while its current product page advertises 48 kHz WAV recording and separate tracks. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

One particularly useful archival feature is that Zencastr distinguishes the raw separate tracks from its enhanced tracks. The raw tracks have no enhancements applied, which is exactly what you'd generally want to retain as an archival master. Zencastr Help Center

3. SquadCast

SquadCast is another double-ender/local-recording platform and supports separate uncompressed WAV audio per participant. Riverside's comparison of the two describes both as producing locally recorded, separate WAV files. Riverside

I'd put it behind Riverside and Zencastr for a new archival workflow mainly because I'd want to verify the current exact sample-rate/bit-depth and plan restrictions before committing to a long-term collection.

What I'd choose for archival work

If you're building something like an oral-history/interview archive, I'd prioritize:

Yes. If your priority is archival-quality, lossless audio with an isolated file for each participant, there are several good remote-recording platforms.

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

riverside.fm records each participant locally and uploads the original recording progressively, rather than relying on the internet stream as the master. Its raw audio tracks are uncompressed WAV, using linear PCM at 16-bit and 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. Riverside Help Center Riverside

That's particularly attractive for archival work because you can preserve the original, isolated microphone recording for every participant and make your processed/editing copies separately.

2. SquadCast — excellent archival-oriented option

squadcast.fm also records participants locally into separate tracks. Its documentation specifies 48 kHz/16-bit WAV for local recordings, with WAV and MP3 available for download. SquadCast SquadCast

The important distinction is that the local recording is your high-quality master; the network/cloud recording is a backup and can be affected by network conditions. SquadCast

3. Zencastr — very good, especially if you're already using it

zencastr.com records each participant separately on their own computer and progressively uploads the recordings. Paid plans provide 16-bit/48 kHz WAV files in addition to MP3. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

One nice archival property is that the raw separate tracks remain available independently of Zencastr's post-production processing. Zencastr Help Center

What I'd choose for archival purposes

Riverside or SquadCast would be my first two choices. The key feature isn't merely "supports WAV"; it's:

Each microphone is recorded locally, independently, as uncompressed PCM, then uploaded.

That's much better for an archive than recording the conference-call mix or even a high-bitrate cloud stream.

For a serious archive, I'd also keep the original WAVs untouched and create separate derivative files for noise reduction, EQ, leveling, transcription, etc. Don't use an AI-enhanced or noise-reduced WAV as your archival master.

One caveat: 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless, but it isn't the highest possible archival specification. If you're doing institutional/heritage preservation and can control the participants' recording setups, you may want 24-bit/48 or 96 kHz PCM. The remote platforms above generally target podcast/broadcast specifications rather than high-end preservation specifications.

If you tell me whether this is for oral histories/interviews, podcasts, research interviews, music, or general meetings, I can narrow this down to the best archival workflow and include options that support 24-bit WAV.

Yes. If your goal is archival-quality remote recording, the key feature to look for is local recording of each participant to an uncompressed PCM/WAV file, rather than simply recording the video call's mixed audio stream.

Best options

1. Riverside — probably my first choice

riverside.fm records each participant locally on their own device, rather than relying on the internet audio stream. It provides a separate high-quality track for every participant, with raw audio available as uncompressed WAV. Riverside documents the raw WAV as 16-bit linear PCM, at either 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

That's particularly appropriate for archival recording because you retain the original participant tracks, rather than a processed/mixed recording.

One important distinction: don't use Riverside's MP3 or cloud-recording track as your archival master. The locally recorded Raw audio (WAV) is what you want. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

2. Zencastr — also an excellent fit

zencastr.com records participants locally and produces separate files for each participant. Its documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans, while its current product page advertises up to 48 kHz WAV recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

This is arguably one of the simplest choices if you're doing audio-only interviews/oral histories/podcasts and don't particularly care about sophisticated video production.

Zencastr also explicitly describes the local recording as protecting quality from internet problems, with each participant's recording backed up locally in the browser during recording. Zencastr Help Center

3. Adobe Podcast Studio

podcast.adobe.com is another interesting option. Adobe says its remote recording is performed locally for each participant and downloaded as 48 kHz, 16-bit WAV, with individual tracks per participant. It also describes the recording as lossless. Adobe Podcast

The progressive upload is particularly attractive for archival work: audio is uploaded while you're recording rather than waiting until the end.

4. SquadCast

squadcast.fm likewise records participants locally in separate tracks and lets the host download the recordings as WAV, among other formats. It supports up to 10 people in a session. SquadCast

It's a solid alternative if its workflow or pricing suits you better.

For true archival recording, I'd rank them

Riverside ≈ Zencastr > Adobe Podcast > SquadCast

But there's an important caveat: 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless, but it isn't necessarily an ideal archival master in the preservation-audio sense. You're preserving the recording without compression, but the 16-bit acquisition limits the available dynamic range compared with a 24-bit recording.

If you're doing something like oral history, historical interviews, research interviews, documentary source material, or a collection that you expect to preserve for decades, I'd want to distinguish between:

• Remote recording platform: Riverside/Zencastr/etc.
• Archival master: ideally 24-bit PCM WAV, preferably 48 or 96 kHz depending on the source and preservation requirements
• Derivative: MP3/AAC/etc. for listening or distribution

The remote platforms above are excellent for capturing the participant's microphone without lossy compression, but if you're specifically looking for 24-bit WAV per participant, that's a narrower requirement and I'd search for platforms that explicitly support it rather than assuming "WAV" means archival-grade acquisition.

If you tell me whether this is audio-only, how many participants, and whether you need 24-bit/96 kHz specifically, I can narrow this down to the best archival workflow and include options beyond the podcast-oriented platforms.

That's particularly appropriate for archival recording because you retain the original participant tracks, rather than a processed/mixed recording.

One important distinction: don't use Riverside's MP3 or cloud-recording track as your archival master. The locally recorded Raw audio (WAV) is what you want. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

2. Zencastr — also an excellent fit

zencastr.com records participants locally and produces separate files for each participant. Its documentation specifies 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV on paid plans, while its current product page advertises up to 48 kHz WAV recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

This is arguably one of the simplest choices if you're doing audio-only interviews/oral histories/podcasts and don't particularly care about sophisticated video production.

Zencastr also explicitly describes the local recording as protecting quality from internet problems, with each participant's recording backed up locally in the browser during recording. Zencastr Help Center

3. Adobe Podcast Studio

podcast.adobe.com is another interesting option. Adobe says its remote recording is performed locally for each participant and downloaded as 48 kHz, 16-bit WAV, with individual tracks per participant. It also describes the recording as lossless. Adobe Podcast

The progressive upload is particularly attractive for archival work: audio is uploaded while you're recording rather than waiting until the end.

4. SquadCast

squadcast.fm likewise records participants locally in separate tracks and lets the host download the recordings as WAV, among other formats. It supports up to 10 people in a session. squadcast.fm

It's a solid alternative if its workflow or pricing suits you better.

For true archival recording, I'd rank them

Riverside ≈ Zencastr > Adobe Podcast > SquadCast

But there's an important caveat: 16-bit/48 kHz WAV is lossless, but it isn't necessarily an ideal archival master in the preservation-audio sense. You're preserving the recording without compression, but the 16-bit acquisition limits the available dynamic range compared with a 24-bit recording.

Yes. If your goal is archival-quality remote recording with an independent lossless file for every participant, there are two particularly strong options:

Riverside

riverside.com

This is probably my first choice for archival recording. Riverside records each participant locally and provides the participant's raw audio as an uncompressed WAV, using linear PCM at 16-bit and 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

The important distinction is that you're getting the raw participant track, rather than merely exporting a WAV from a compressed conference recording. Riverside explicitly says the high-quality tracks are recorded locally on each participant's device, so network problems shouldn't degrade the recording. Riverside Help Center Riverside

For archival purposes, I'd configure it for 48 kHz, 16-bit WAV, audio-only if you don't need video, and retain the individual raw WAVs rather than only the final mixed file.

Zencastr

zencastr.com

Zencastr is also an excellent fit. It records separate tracks for every participant, locally on their device, and its current documentation specifies 16-bit 48 kHz WAV recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

Its advantage is that the workflow is very straightforward for interviews: send someone a link, they join in their browser, and Zencastr creates their own local track. It also maintains local backups during recording. Zencastr Help Center

What I'd choose for archival work

I'd rank them:

1. Riverside — best if your priority is preservation and maximum control over the original individual tracks.
2. Zencastr — essentially equally compelling for straightforward remote interviews, especially if you like its workflow.
3. Other remote-recording services — worth considering only if they offer true local, per-participant PCM/WAV recording, rather than simply exporting a WAV from a compressed WebRTC/cloud recording.

One important archival distinction: WAV ≠ necessarily "original" or archival-quality by itself. You want the service to record the microphone signal locally as PCM before transmission, producing an individual raw track for each participant. Both Riverside and Zencastr meet that criterion. Riverside explicitly describes its raw WAV as an uncompressed participant track, while Zencastr describes local recording and separate WAV tracks. Riverside Help Center Zencastr Help Center

If you're building a serious oral-history/interview archive, I can also compare Riverside, Zencastr, SquadCast, Cleanfeed, Zoom, and similar services specifically on WAV/FLAC, bit depth, sample rate, local-vs-cloud recording, file provenance, metadata, and archival suitability.

The important distinction is that you're getting the raw participant track, rather than merely exporting a WAV from a compressed conference recording. Riverside explicitly says the high-quality tracks are recorded locally on each participant's device, so network problems shouldn't degrade the recording. Riverside Help Center riverside.com

For archival purposes, I'd configure it for 48 kHz, 16-bit WAV, audio-only if you don't need video, and retain the individual raw WAVs rather than only the final mixed file.

Zencastr

zencastr.com

Zencastr is also an excellent fit. It records separate tracks for every participant, locally on their device, and its current documentation specifies 16-bit 48 kHz WAV recording.

Its advantage is that the workflow is very straightforward for interviews: send someone a link, they join in their browser, and Zencastr creates their own local track. It also maintains local backups during recording.

For archival-quality remote recording, you generally want local recording per participant (each person’s microphone is captured on their own machine) and separate uncompressed files (usually WAV). Avoid relying on the compressed audio stream from normal video-call platforms.

Good options:

For archival purposes, I would prioritize:

1. Riverside — best all-around if you also want video, metadata, and an easy workflow. riverside.fmriverside.fm
2. Cleanfeed Pro — best if the archive is primarily spoken-word audio and you want a more broadcast-oriented approach. www.reddit.com
3. Zencastr — very practical for interviews with nontechnical participants. zencastr.com
4. Boomcaster — worth considering for more production-heavy archival projects. www.boomcaster.com

For long-term preservation, I’d also suggest:

• Record at 48 kHz / 24-bit WAV if the platform supports it (many remote tools are limited to 16-bit).
• Keep the original isolated tracks; do not archive only the edited mix.
• Preserve session metadata: participant names, date/time, microphone model, location (if appropriate), consent records, and notes.
• Store a checksum (e.g., SHA-256) for each master file.
• Maintain at least two storage copies in separate locations.

One caveat: many “lossless” remote platforms advertise WAV, but the bit depth and exact sample rate vary by plan and settings. If you need true archival masters (e.g., oral history, documentary, institutional archive), verify the exact export specs before choosing.

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.