Answers that do not mention vidIQ

For a one-person creator who wants the least technical hassle, I’d pick Riverside.

My ranking

1. Riverside — best overall

• Guests can join from a link rather than installing complicated software.
• It records participants locally, giving you separate, high-quality tracks rather than relying on the quality of the live call.
• Particularly strong if you publish video interviews, YouTube content, or social clips.
• Built-in editing and clipping can reduce the number of tools you need. The Podcast Consultant CreatorStackClub
• SquadCast — best if simplicity beats features

• Very straightforward guest experience: click a link, no download or guest account required.
• Separate local tracks and automatic uploads.
• A particularly good choice if you're primarily recording audio interviews or already use Descript. SquadCast SquadCast
• Zencastr — best all-in-one podcast option

• Good browser-based recording with local tracks.
• More oriented toward the complete podcast workflow, including hosting, analytics, clips, and distribution.
• I'd choose it if you want to minimize the number of services you pay for. ngram Podcast AI Tools

What I'd do in your shoes

Choose Riverside if your interviews are video-first. It gives you the easiest path from “send guest a link” → “record” → “download/edit” → “make clips.”

Choose SquadCast if they're mostly audio. Its intentionally simple guest workflow is hard to beat when your priority is avoiding technical headaches. SquadCast

One important thing: I wouldn't use ordinary Zoom/Meet as your primary recording setup if you're trying to get polished interview audio. Dedicated remote-recording platforms capture each person's audio/video locally, so a bad internet connection is much less likely to ruin the actual recording. PodRewind

If you tell me audio vs. video, roughly how many interviews/month, and your budget, I can narrow it down to one specific plan.

For a remote video podcast where synced, high-res audio and video are the priority, I’d pick Riverside.

• Local recording: Each guest’s audio/video is recorded on their own device, so a bad internet connection is much less likely to ruin the master files. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center
• High resolution: Video can reach 4K/2160p, depending on the guest’s camera/device, with 48 kHz WAV audio available. Riverside Help Center
• Perfectly synced separate tracks: You get individual audio and video tracks for every participant, which is ideal for Premiere, Final Cut, DaVinci, etc. Riverside Riverside Help Center
• Progressive uploading: Files upload during the session, giving you some protection if a guest has an issue at the end. Riverside
• Easy for guests: They can join through a browser link rather than learning complicated recording software. Riverside

Good alternatives

Zencastr is probably the closest alternative. It also records locally, supports up to 4K video and 48 kHz audio, and provides separate tracks per participant. Zencastr

Descript Rooms is attractive if you want the recording and editing workflow tightly integrated. It captures separate camera tracks, supports up to 4K video, and can generate separate lossless WAV files. Descript Help Center Descript

My ranking for your specific requirement:

1. Riverside — best overall for reliable, synced, high-quality remote podcast recording.
2. Zencastr — excellent alternative, especially if you want a podcast-focused workflow.
3. Descript Rooms — best if heavy transcript-based editing is part of your workflow.

riverside.com

One important caveat: 4K/48 kHz doesn't magically improve a guest's hardware. For the best result, have guests use a decent camera, a dedicated USB/XLR microphone, headphones, and a wired connection when possible.

If high sample rates are a hard requirement, I’d look beyond the usual podcast platforms.

My pick: Cleanfeed Pro

Cleanfeed Pro is probably the best fit for a freelance producer doing serious audio work with clients worldwide. It’s browser-based, designed specifically for professional remote audio, supports multitrack sessions, and is built around low-latency, high-quality audio rather than video conferencing. cleanfeed.net

But there’s an important caveat: if by “high sample rates” you mean 96 kHz or 192 kHz recording, I would not choose based on Cleanfeed alone. Its documentation emphasizes high-quality audio transmission, but doesn't clearly promise 96/192 kHz local recording.

If 96 kHz recording is mandatory

I'd consider a DAW-to-DAW workflow rather than a conventional remote-recording platform. The key distinction is:

• Remote monitoring/communication: can be 48 kHz or lower.
• Actual client recording: ideally captured locally at 96 kHz/24-bit on the client's computer/interface.
• The internet connection should only carry the monitoring/talkback feed, not the master recording.

That approach gives you genuinely high-resolution files while avoiding internet-quality compromises.

How I'd rank the common options

Sessionwire is particularly attractive for music producers: it has DAW plugins, remote desktop, file transfer, talkback/automute, and 48 kHz stereo streaming. www.sessionwire.com

Riverside is excellent if your work includes video. It records participants locally and provides separate WAV tracks, but its current documentation specifies 44.1 or 48 kHz audio, so it doesn't meet a true 96 kHz requirement. riverside.com

Bottom line: for a producer whose clients are musicians/vocalists and where 96 kHz/24-bit deliverables actually matter, I'd build the workflow around local 96 kHz recording + Cleanfeed/Sessionwire for communication and monitoring, rather than trusting a browser platform to make the high-resolution master remotely.