Answers that name a competitor

For a weekly interview podcast with guests in different countries, I’d look first at Riverside. It’s specifically built for remote podcast recording and records each participant locally, giving you separate tracks rather than relying on the compressed audio of a normal video call. It supports up to 48 kHz audio and separate tracks, with high-resolution video if you also publish video episodes. Riverside Riverside

The shortlist

• Riverside — Strong all-around choice if you want studio-quality audio + video + easy guest experience + clips. Guests can join remotely, while their audio is captured locally. Riverside
• SquadCast — Worth considering if you're audio-first or already work heavily in Descript. It emphasizes isolated local tracks and reliability. PodStack
• Zencastr — Good if you want an audio-focused podcast workflow with recording, editing, hosting and distribution in one place, particularly if keeping costs down matters. ngram
• Cleanfeed — Particularly interesting for audio-only interviews where voice quality matters more than video. It uses browser-based broadcast-quality audio. PodStack

For your specific format, I'd start with Riverside, then do a 10-minute test with a guest before committing. The biggest quality factor isn't actually the platform: it's the guest's microphone, headphones, room acoustics, and whether the platform captures their audio locally. Vox Boy

If you tell me audio-only vs. video podcast, your approximate budget, and whether guests usually join from phones or laptops, I can narrow this down to the most suitable setup.

For a weekly interview podcast with guests spread across countries, I’d use riverside.fm.

Why Riverside fits your use case

• Studio-quality audio: It records each participant locally and provides separate, uncompressed 48 kHz WAV tracks, so a guest's unstable internet connection doesn't ruin the recording. Riverside Riverside
• Very easy for guests: You send a link; guests can join from a browser without installing software. Riverside
• Separate tracks: You get an individual audio track for you and every guest, which is exactly what you want for professional editing. Riverside
• Good for international guests: Local recording means the final audio isn't dependent on the quality of the live internet connection. Riverside Help Center
• Video if you want it: It supports up to 4K video, so the same recording can become a YouTube episode and social clips. Riverside
• Post-production built in: It includes transcription, text-based editing and audio enhancement, which can reduce the amount of work after each weekly interview. Riverside

One alternative worth considering

zencastr.com is also very strong, particularly if your priority is audio-first podcasting. It records locally, gives you separate tracks, and supports 48 kHz WAV; it also has a free tier. Zencastr Zencastr Help Center

My practical choice: Riverside for a recurring international interview show, especially if you're publishing both audio + video. Zencastr is worth testing if you're primarily audio and want a simpler alternative.

And whichever you choose, the platform matters less than having each guest use a decent microphone, headphones, and a quiet room—that's what will make the recording actually sound "studio-quality."

If you tell me your budget per month and whether you publish video as well as audio, I can narrow it down to the best setup for your podcast.

For a small podcast network on a tight budget, I’d prioritize local recording + separate tracks over fancy editing features. That way a bad internet connection during the conversation doesn’t ruin the master audio.

My shortlist

• zencastr.com — best budget starting point. Its current free plan offers unlimited audio/video recording, separate tracks, 48 kHz WAV, and up to 10 participants. It also records locally on each participant’s device, which is exactly what you want for remote shows. Zencastr Zencastr

Why I'd start here: you can run multiple shows without immediately adding another monthly expense. The free tier also includes hosting, which may eliminate another service.

• cleanfeed.net — best if you're audio-first. The free Lite tier allows unlimited recording and commercial use, but separate multitrack recording is a Pro feature. Pro currently starts at $12/month for personal use; it supports up to 32 guests and gives each guest an isolated track. Cleanfeed Cleanfeed

Why choose it: excellent fit for an audio-only network where you already have an editor/DAW and don't need video production.

• riverside.fm — best if video/social clips matter. It records separate local tracks for participants and has substantially more built-in video/editing functionality. Its free tier currently provides 2 hours of separate-track recording as a one-time allowance; paid plans increase that to 5 or 15 hours/month depending on tier. Riverside Riverside Help Center

Why choose it: if every podcast episode also needs YouTube video, clips, captions, etc., the extra tooling can reduce your editing stack.

What I'd do with your budget

Start the network on Zencastr Free. It's unusually generous for the specific thing you need: multiple remote people + isolated tracks + local recording. Zencastr

Then use a separate inexpensive DAW/editor such as Audacity, Reaper, or whatever your editor already knows. You don't need to pay for an all-in-one production suite just to get good multitrack recordings.

I'd only move to Cleanfeed Pro if you're primarily audio and want a more production-oriented recording environment, or Riverside if video is becoming a major part of the network.

One caveat: test your exact guest workflow before committing—especially phones, multiple simultaneous guests, and how quickly files become available after recording. Those practical details matter more than feature lists for a podcast network.

For a small podcast network on a tight budget, I’d focus on tools that record each participant locally and deliver separate tracks. That way, a bad internet connection during the conversation doesn't necessarily ruin the master recording.

My shortlist

1. Zencastr — strongest budget option

Zencastr currently advertises free unlimited recording, with separate tracks for up to 6 participants, local recording, and up to 48 kHz WAV/4K video capabilities. It also offers podcast hosting on the free tier. Zencastr Zencastr Zencastr

That's particularly attractive for a network because you can have multiple shows using the same platform rather than buying a recorder subscription for every production.

I'd start here if: your priority is "we need reliable multitrack remote recording without adding another monthly bill."

2. Descript — good if editing is part of the problem

Descript incorporates SquadCast's remote recording functionality. Its current Free plan includes isolated and mixed audio tracks, while the $16/month Hobbyist plan increases recording capacity and removes some export limitations. SquadCast

The advantage is the workflow: record → transcript → edit → captions/clips in one application. Descript itself describes the distinction as essentially recording locally and then opening the material directly in its transcript-based editor. Descript

I'd choose this if: your producers spend more time editing than recording and you want to consolidate software.

3. Riverside — particularly useful for video

Riverside is another local-recording platform with separate participant tracks and strong video capabilities. Its free tier exists, but its paid plans make more sense if you're recording regularly and need more separate-track downloads/higher-quality exports. Riverside Descript

I'd choose this if: your network is increasingly doing YouTube/video podcasts, not just audio.

What I'd do with a tight network budget

Start with Zencastr + your existing editor. Don't pay for Riverside/Descript simply because they're more feature-heavy. Zencastr's current free offering already covers the core requirement—remote participants recorded to separate tracks. Zencastr

If you eventually find that producers are wasting substantial time cleaning up/editing recordings, move to Descript. If video becomes a major part of the network, evaluate Riverside.

One important distinction: Zoom/Google Meet-style call recording isn't equivalent to local multitrack recording. For podcast production, you specifically want each participant's microphone captured separately, rather than relying on the compressed mixed call.

If you tell me roughly how many shows, episodes/month, typical number of guests, and whether you need video, I can map out the cheapest setup for the whole network (including editing, hosting, and storage).

For a one-person creator who wants the least technical friction, I’d start with Riverside. It’s designed around remote interviews: you send a guest a link, they join in a browser, and it records separate high-quality tracks instead of relying on the compressed call audio you get from typical video meetings. It also has built-in editing, captions, and clip-making tools, which can save a solo creator a lot of extra steps. BestCreates ngram

Here’s how I’d choose:

For your specific situation (solo creator + avoiding technical hassles), I’d use this setup:

1. Recording: Riverside
2. Guest instructions: “Click this link, allow mic/camera, choose your microphone, and you’re done.”
3. Editing: Use its built-in tools at first; only add a separate editor if your workflow grows.
4. Backup habit: Do a 2-minute test recording before important interviews.

A few things I would avoid for your use case:

• Zoom as the main recorder — it’s convenient, but it’s optimized for meetings rather than producing clean, editable interview tracks. THAT Toronto Podcast Studio
• Overbuilding your setup early — multiple apps, manual syncing, and complicated audio chains add failure points.

If you’re making video interviews for YouTube/social clips, pick Riverside. If you’re making an audio-only podcast, I’d compare Riverside vs Zencastr before paying. ngram

For a one-person creator doing remote interviews, I’d look first at streamyard.com and riverside.fm.

My practical pick: StreamYard

If your priority is “I want my guest to click a link and have everything just work,” StreamYard is probably the easiest fit.

• Browser-based: you and your guest don't need to install software. StreamYard StreamYard Help Center
• Guests don't need an account: you send them a link and they join. StreamYard
• Separate local recordings: each participant can have separate audio/video files, so a bad connection doesn't necessarily ruin the recording. StreamYard StreamYard Help Center
• Good creator workflow: recording, editing, clips, and even live streaming are integrated. StreamYard

When I'd choose Riverside instead

Riverside is particularly compelling if the recording itself is the priority—especially if you want maximum quality for editing later.

It records each participant locally and gives you synchronized, separate tracks; its high-quality recording can go up to 4K video and WAV audio, depending on equipment/settings. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center Guests can also join without creating an account or installing anything. Riverside

Bottom line: For a solo creator who wants to spend as little time troubleshooting as possible, I'd start with StreamYard. If you're building a polished interview/podcast show where recording quality and separate tracks matter more than absolute simplicity, Riverside is worth choosing instead.

For a video podcast with remote guests where synced, high-resolution audio + video is the priority, the tools most podcasters use are local-recording platforms (they capture each guest’s feed on their own device, then upload the files), rather than normal video-call apps. Riverside Riverside

My shortlist:

For your specific requirement—synced high-res audio and video from remote guests—I’d start with Riverside. It is built around the exact problem you described: preserving each participant’s high-quality local recording instead of relying on the live internet stream. Riverside Riverside

A reliable setup would be:

• Host + guest: good USB/XLR microphones and headphones
• Guest joins through the browser/app link
• Each person records locally
• Download separate audio/video tracks for editing
• Do final sync/edit in your NLE (Premiere, Final Cut, DaVinci Resolve, etc.)

A few things to check before committing:

• Does it support your target video resolution (1080p vs 4K)?
• Does it export separate guest tracks?
• Does it keep recording if a guest’s connection drops?
• Can less-technical guests join without installing software?

If your show is YouTube-first with video clips, I’d lean Riverside. If it is mostly audio with occasional video, Zencastr may be enough. Zencastr Riverside

• Host + guest: good USB/XLR microphones and headphones
• Guest joins through the browser/app link
• Each person records locally
• Download separate audio/video tracks for editing
• Do final sync/edit in your NLE (Premiere, Final Cut, DaVinci Resolve, etc.)

A few things to check before committing:

• Does it support your target video resolution (1080p vs 4K)?
• Does it export separate guest tracks?
• Does it keep recording if a guest’s connection drops?
• Can less-technical guests join without installing software?

If your show is YouTube-first with video clips, I’d lean Riverside. If it is mostly audio with occasional video, Zencastr may be enough. Zencastr Riverside

For a remote video podcast where you care about both high-res video and clean, synchronized audio, I’d look first at Riverside.

• Riverside records each participant locally rather than relying on the live internet stream, then uploads the recordings. That means connection quality has much less impact on the master files. It supports up to 4K video, 44.1/48 kHz audio, and separate tracks for each participant. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center
• The separate, aligned tracks are particularly useful if you're editing in Premiere, Final Cut, or similar software—you get each guest's video and audio independently while maintaining synchronization. Riverside Help Center
• Descript/SquadCast is another strong option, especially if you want recording tightly integrated with text-based editing. Descript added 4K remote recording in 2026, with participants recorded locally. Descript
• Zencastr is worth considering if audio is a bigger priority and you want a broader podcast-production workflow, but I'd favor Riverside when video quality is central. Riverside

My practical recommendation

Riverside → separate 4K video + WAV tracks → Premiere/Final Cut/DaVinci for the final edit.

One important caveat: local recording protects you from internet-quality degradation, but your guest's camera, microphone, lighting, room acoustics, and device still determine the actual recording quality. Also have guests keep their browser/session open until their uploads have finished. Riverside Help Center

If you tell me your budget, number of guests, and whether you edit in Premiere, Final Cut, DaVinci, or Descript, I can narrow it down between Riverside, Descript/SquadCast, and Zencastr.

For live remote panels where avoiding a lost session is the priority, I’d lean toward StreamYard.

• StreamYard: Paid plans can automatically save the live session to the cloud, while local recording can capture separate files for each participant. That gives you a cloud copy + local/high-quality source files, which is a strong failure-resistant setup. StreamYard StreamYard
• Zoom: Also solid if your panels already run as meetings/webinars. Paid accounts support automatic cloud recording, and you can configure automatic recording at the account or meeting level. Zoom Zoom
• OBS: Excellent for local production control, but by itself it doesn't give you the same built-in remote-guest/cloud-backup workflow. You'd need to build the backup process separately. StreamYard

What I'd set up

StreamYard + automatic cloud recording + local participant recording + a separate storage backup.

That way you aren't relying on a single recording location. If a host's computer dies, you still have the cloud recording; if something goes wrong with the cloud recording, the local participant files provide another recovery path.

streamyard.com

If your panels are large (e.g. 10–50+ people), 1–3 hours long, and mission-critical, tell me roughly how many panelists and your monthly number of sessions are, and I can compare StreamYard vs Zoom vs Riverside specifically for reliability, backup architecture, and cost.

If your main requirement is “never lose a live remote panel recording”, prioritize software that does local recording + continuous cloud upload + automatic backups, rather than relying only on a single cloud recording created after the event.

My shortlist:

For a professional panel workflow, I’d set it up like this:

1. Primary recording: Riverside or StreamYard (depending on whether you value editing quality or live production more).
2. Automatic cloud backup: Enabled by default.
3. Secondary backup: Automatically copy completed recordings to a separate storage system such as your organization’s cloud storage (for example, a company-managed drive or archive bucket).
4. Pre-show checklist:

• Confirm recording indicator is active.
• Confirm all panelists have stable audio/video.
• Assign a producer/moderator who is not also presenting.
• Run a short test recording before important events.
• Retention policy: Keep the original master files, not only exported MP4s, so you can recover audio/video tracks later.

My practical pick:

• Panels that are live events first (audience interaction, overlays, streaming): StreamYard.
• Panels where the recording itself is the asset (editing, clips, training archive, podcast): Riverside.
• High-stakes events: Use one of those plus a separate backup copy process rather than trusting a single platform.

If you tell me your typical panel size (e.g., 4 speakers vs 20), whether you stream to YouTube/LinkedIn, and how long you retain recordings, I can narrow this down.

If your main requirement is “I send my guest a link, they click it, and we start recording”, I’d look first at Riverside and Zencastr.

My beginner-friendly comparison

Riverside is particularly straightforward: guests can join through a browser link without installing anything, and each participant's recording is captured locally and uploaded separately. Riverside Riverside Help Center

riverside.com

Zencastr has an especially attractive free option: it says guests don't need an account, recordings can be captured locally, and separate tracks are provided for each speaker. Zencastr

zencastr.com

Descript Rooms is worth considering if you want the recording and editing workflow in one place. It records participants locally and creates separate tracks, then you can edit the result directly in Descript. Descript Descript

descript.com

What I'd choose as a beginner

I'd start with Riverside if you're planning to publish video clips/YouTube as well as audio. If you're primarily doing audio podcasts and want to keep costs down, I'd seriously consider Zencastr.

The important thing is don't use ordinary Zoom/Google Meet as your primary recording method if you care about podcast-quality audio. With local recording, each person's microphone is recorded on their own device, so a bad internet connection doesn't necessarily ruin the final audio. Zencastr Descript

If you tell me (1) audio-only vs video, (2) your budget, and (3) whether you want the tool to edit the episode too, I can narrow it down to one and tell you exactly what I'd use.

If your priority is “I send my guest one link, they click it, and we’re recording”, I’d look at Riverside and Zencastr first.

My beginner-friendly shortlist

🥇 Riverside

Riverside is probably the easiest all-around starting point if you're doing interviews.

You create a recording room, copy the guest link, and send it to them. Guests can join through their browser without having to install recording software. Riverside records participants locally, which is important because you're not relying entirely on the quality of the internet connection for your final recording. Riverside Riverside

It's particularly attractive if you want video clips for YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, etc. in addition to the podcast.

riverside.fm

🥈 Zencastr

Zencastr is worth serious consideration if you're audio-first or trying to keep costs down.

The guest experience is extremely simple: you send a link, they click it, and they can join without creating a Zencastr account. On a computer, they don't need to download anything. Zencastr records separate tracks for each participant and currently offers a free tier with up to six participants. Zencastr Zencastr Help Center

zencastr.com

What I'd do if I were starting

For a video podcast: Riverside.

For an audio-only interview podcast: Zencastr.

If you already plan to edit heavily in Descript: consider SquadCast/Descript.

One important thing: don't use ordinary Zoom recording as your first choice if podcast audio quality matters. Zoom is incredibly convenient, but dedicated remote-recording platforms are designed to capture each person's audio locally rather than simply recording the compressed video call. Riverside

If you tell me whether you're doing audio-only or video + audio, and your approximate monthly budget ($0 / <$20 / $20–50), I can narrow it down to one and tell you exactly how I'd set it up.

Riverside is a strong fit for your workflow. It records each participant locally, continuously uploads the files to the cloud, and provides separate tracks for editing. It also supports podcast hosting/distribution to platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. Riverside Riverside Help Center

For a multilingual show, Zencastr is another good option: it supports local recording, progressive cloud uploads, automatic Google Drive/Dropbox syncing, transcription in multiple languages, and podcast distribution. zencastr.com zencastr.com

My practical pick: Riverside if your priority is a simple record → upload → edit → publish workflow; Zencastr if multilingual transcription and automated file storage are especially important.

I’d recommend Riverside for this workflow.

• Local recording: Each speaker is recorded locally, with separate 48 kHz WAV tracks, so internet quality doesn’t determine the recording quality. Riverside
• Automatic uploads: Tracks progressively upload to the cloud while recording, reducing the need to collect files manually. Riverside Help Center
• Multilingual production: Its AI transcription supports 100+ languages, useful for transcripts, captions, and repurposing episodes. Riverside
• Publishing: Riverside can host podcasts and publish episodes to connected listening platforms. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm is therefore a strong fit if you want record → automatically upload → edit/transcribe → publish in one workflow.

For a distributed team where editors need separate speaker files, I’d start with Riverside. It records participants locally and provides separate tracks, so editors can download clean files rather than editing a compressed call recording. Riverside PodStack

• Riverside — strongest fit for video + audio production teams; separate tracks, high-quality video, and easy guest links.
• SquadCast — worth considering if you’re primarily audio and reliability/progressive uploads matter most. CreatorStackClub
• Zencastr — good audio-first option, particularly if keeping costs down is important; it also provides separate tracks. PodStack

For your workflow: Riverside → producer records → platform uploads individual guest tracks → editor downloads WAVs/video → editing happens independently.

If you tell me audio-only vs video, number of people per episode, and whether editors use Descript/Premiere/Pro Tools, I can narrow it down to the most suitable setup.

For a distributed production team where the key requirement is “record remotely, then hand clean individual tracks to editors,” I’d narrow it to Riverside, SquadCast/Descript Rooms, and Zencastr.

My practical recommendation: Riverside

riverside.com is probably the best fit if you're producing both audio and video episodes.

It records participants locally rather than relying on the live internet connection, and gives you separate tracks per participant that can be downloaded for editing elsewhere. It also supports high-resolution video, so your editors have good source material if you're publishing to YouTube/social as well. Riverside Podstack

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

Host → Riverside session → individual WAV/video files → shared project storage → editor → final mix/master

That separation is particularly useful because your producer doesn't need to be the person doing the edit.

How I'd compare the three

All three use local recording, which is the important distinction from simply recording a Zoom/Meet call. Vox Boy CreatorStackClub

When I'd choose something else

Choose Descript Rooms/SquadCast if your editors already work heavily in descript.com. The recording and editing workflow can be tightly connected, which reduces handoffs. Podstack

Choose Zencastr if you're primarily audio, don't need sophisticated video production, and want to keep costs down. Its current offering emphasizes separate-track recording plus podcast-oriented editing, hosting, and distribution. Podstack ngram

One thing I'd prioritize over almost everything else

For your setup, don't just ask “Does it record separate tracks?” Ask:

“Can an editor reliably download every participant's original WAV independently, without the producer having to manually prepare the files?”

That's what makes the difference in a distributed workflow.

I'd also standardize your team on a 48 kHz WAV delivery, consistent file naming, and a shared storage location (Drive, Dropbox, etc.). That gives editors a predictable ingest process regardless of who hosted the interview.

If you tell me roughly how many episodes you produce per month, whether they're audio-only or video + audio, and what your editors use (Premiere, Audition, Pro Tools, Logic, Descript, etc.), I can recommend the specific platform/workflow and plan.

If your priority is remote guests with cheap mics, I’d look at software-side AI processing rather than relying on hardware onboard processing—because your hardware can’t clean up a guest’s microphone before their audio reaches you.

My pick: Riverside + Magic Audio

Riverside is particularly well suited to this use case. Its Magic Audio can process each participant’s track to reduce background noise and reverb, improve vocal clarity, EQ the voice, and balance loudness. Riverside Riverside Help Center

It also records guests locally at up to 48 kHz, giving you a much better starting point than trying to clean up a compressed Zoom/Meet feed. Riverside

riverside.fm

If you mean a physical mixer/interface

The RØDECaster Pro II/Duo has excellent onboard processing for your local microphones: compressor, noise gate, EQ, de-esser and APHEX processing. RØDE RØDE

But there's an important catch: USB/Bluetooth inputs don't get the full microphone processing chain, so it isn't the solution I'd choose specifically to rescue remote guests. RØDE

For your scenario

I'd build the workflow like this:

Guest's cheap mic → Riverside local recording → Magic Audio → individual WAV track → final mix

That gives you considerably more flexibility than trying to aggressively process a live remote feed. Riverside also lets you apply Magic Audio to individual participants, so you can treat the terrible-sounding guest without unnecessarily processing your own clean microphone. Riverside

If you tell me whether you're doing podcasts, interviews, livestreams, or Zoom-style meetings, I can narrow this down to the best 2–3 setups (including alternatives like Adobe Podcast/Descript/DAWs).

If your priority is making cheap/poor guest mics sound much better automatically, I’d look closely at Descript.

• Descript / Rooms + Studio Sound — particularly strong for this use case. Its Studio Sound AI processing is designed to remove background noise, echo, and other room problems and make weak recordings sound more polished. It can be applied to individual guest tracks, which is useful when one guest sounds substantially worse than another. Descript Descript
• Riverside + Magic Audio — another good option if remote recording/video is the centerpiece. Riverside records guests locally, avoiding the degradation of recording the actual internet call, and offers AI audio cleanup. Descript AI Stack Picks
• Zencastr — has local multitrack recording plus audio enhancement such as background-noise reduction and normalization. It's worth considering if you want a more budget-oriented workflow. Riverside

The important distinction

For really bad guest microphones, onboard processing isn't the whole story. You want:

local isolated recording → AI noise/room cleanup → EQ/leveling → limiter

rather than simply recording the Zoom/Meet/Riverside call mix.

That's because local recording preserves the guest's original microphone signal even when their internet connection is poor. Descript, Riverside, and Zencastr all use local/multitrack recording approaches. Descript Descript

For your specific requirement—“guest shows up with a $20 USB mic in a noisy room and I want them to sound respectable”—I'd put Descript Studio Sound near the top of the shortlist. If you tell me whether this is for podcasts, video interviews, or live streaming, I can narrow it down further and compare the actual noise-reduction/voice-processing features.

For up to six callers, use a remote podcast recorder that captures each person locally into separate tracks rather than Zoom-style call recording. Good options:

• Riverside.fm — Best all-around for interview podcasts: isolated audio/video tracks, local recording, browser guests, and recovery from unstable connections. Riverside
• Zencastr — Strong audio-first choice with separate tracks and simple guest links. Airtape Studio
• Descript (including its recording workflow) — Good if you want recording, transcription, and editing in one place. Descript
• Adobe Podcast — Supports multitrack recording with local capture and progressive uploads designed to protect recordings during connection issues. Adobe Podcast

For a six-person interview show, I’d prioritize:

1. Local recording on every participant’s device.
2. Separate WAV tracks per caller.
3. Progressive upload/recovery if someone drops.
4. Browser-based guest access (no installs).
5. A host test session before live episodes.

Avoid relying on Zoom alone; it is optimized for meetings, not production-quality isolated tracks. Riverside For your use case, I’d shortlist Riverside (video + polished workflow) or Zencastr (audio-first simplicity).

For a podcast with up to six callers, I’d shortlist Riverside and Zencastr. Both use local recording, which is the key feature you want: each participant’s audio is captured on their own device rather than relying on the live internet stream for the master recording.

My pick: Riverside

riverside.fm is a particularly good fit if this is a recurring interview show.

• Separate tracks: Each participant gets an individual high-quality audio/video track. Riverside supports up to 10 recorded participants. Riverside Riverside Help Center
• Connection drops: The recording happens locally, while tracks are uploaded continuously in the background. Riverside says this protects the recording from internet lag/drops and even browser crashes. Riverside Riverside
• Graceful recovery: There are also cloud recordings available as a lower-quality fallback if a participant's high-quality track is incomplete. Riverside Help Center
• Podcast workflow: It includes editing, transcription, clips, and podcast publishing, if you want to keep more of the workflow in one place. Riverside

Strong alternative: Zencastr

zencastr.com is especially compelling if you want something straightforward and your ceiling really is six people.

• It records separate tracks for up to six participants, including on its free offering. Zencastr
• Audio/video is recorded locally, so a bad internet connection affects the conversation but doesn't inherently degrade the locally recorded master. Zencastr Help Center
• Recordings begin uploading as you record, and Zencastr maintains local backups, helping protect against disconnections or a computer problem. Zencastr Zencastr Help Center
• Guests can join through a link without creating an account on a computer. Zencastr

Quick comparison

Riverside's current free plan provides 2 hours of multi-track recording, while Zencastr currently advertises unlimited recording on its free plan with up to six participants. Riverside Zencastr

Bottom line: For a professional interview podcast where a dropped connection must not ruin the recording, I'd use Riverside. If keeping costs down and having exactly six participants is the priority, Zencastr is worth serious consideration.

One important operational tip: regardless of platform, have every guest use headphones, a wired/USB microphone when possible, and Chrome/Edge on a computer, and do a 2-minute test recording before the actual interview.

If high sample rate is a hard requirement, I’d narrow the field considerably. Many popular remote-recording platforms top out at 44.1/48 kHz—for example, Riverside’s high-quality tracks are currently 44.1 or 48 kHz. Riverside Help Center

My recommendation: SessionLinkPRO

For a freelance producer doing professional sessions with clients around the world, SessionLinkPRO is worth looking at first. It is designed specifically for professional far-end recording rather than general-purpose video conferencing, with bidirectional low-latency audio and browser-based guest access. SessionLinkPRO

However, there's an important catch: SessionLinkPRO's documented recording modes are centered around 48 kHz/24-bit, and its support documentation actually recommends 48 kHz; higher sample rates can cause transmission problems. SessionLinkPRO SessionLinkPRO

So if by "high sample rates" you specifically mean 88.2 or 96 kHz, I wouldn't choose a browser-based service purely on that basis.

Another strong option: Cleanfeed Pro

Cleanfeed is particularly compelling if your work is audio-only. It offers real-time, high-quality audio, multitrack recording with each participant on a separate synchronized track, multiple hardware inputs, and browser-based guest access. Cleanfeed

Its advantage is the audio-production workflow rather than video/podcast features. But again, its browser transmission isn't the same thing as capturing a client's microphone locally at 96 kHz.

What I'd use for 96 kHz work

If your clients are musicians/voice talent and you're delivering 96 kHz masters, I'd use a remote platform for communication/monitoring but have each performer record locally at 96 kHz/24-bit in a DAW, then upload the resulting WAV files. That preserves the actual high-resolution source rather than relying on the browser's audio pipeline.

In other words:

• Professional remote voice/interview production: SessionLinkPRO
• Audio-only remote production/broadcasting: Cleanfeed Pro
• 96 kHz music/VO recording: local 96 kHz/24-bit recording + remote session platform
• Convenient video + remote recording: Riverside, but it's currently documented at 44.1/48 kHz rather than 96 kHz. Riverside Help Center

If you tell me whether you're primarily recording music, voiceover, podcasts, or remote sessions with instruments, I can narrow this down to the best workflow—including which option gives you the lowest latency and most reliable isolated WAV files.

However, there's an important catch: SessionLinkPRO's documented recording modes are centered around 48 kHz/24-bit, and its support documentation actually recommends 48 kHz; higher sample rates can cause transmission problems. sessionlinkpro.com sessionlinkpro.com

So if by "high sample rates" you specifically mean 88.2 or 96 kHz, I wouldn't choose a browser-based service purely on that basis.

Another strong option: Cleanfeed Pro

Cleanfeed is particularly compelling if your work is audio-only. It offers real-time, high-quality audio, multitrack recording with each participant on a separate synchronized track, multiple hardware inputs, and browser-based guest access. cleanfeed.net

Its advantage is the audio-production workflow rather than video/podcast features. But again, its browser transmission isn't the same thing as capturing a client's microphone locally at 96 kHz.

What I'd use for 96 kHz work

For a freelance producer working with clients worldwide, I’d look closely at Audiomovers LISTENTO.

audiomovers.com

My recommendation: LISTENTO

It’s particularly suited to professional music-production workflows because it can transmit lossless PCM audio at up to 32-bit/384 kHz, including 96 kHz and 192 kHz, rather than relying on the compressed audio typical of video-call platforms. Audiomovers Audiomovers

For a producer, the useful features are:

• High-resolution PCM: 24/32-bit and up to 384 kHz; 96 kHz is explicitly supported. Audiomovers
• DAW integration: plugins are available for major DAW formats, so you can stream directly from your production environment. Audiomovers
• Multichannel: supports up to 16 channels, including surround/Dolby Atmos workflows. Audiomovers
• Worldwide collaboration: clients can listen through a browser, desktop/mobile app, or receiver plugin without needing the same DAW setup. Audiomovers
• Adjustable latency: useful when balancing responsiveness against audio quality/network stability. Audiomovers
• Professional pedigree: Abbey Road says its remote sessions use Audiomovers for high-resolution remote audio collaboration. Abbey Road

One important distinction: LISTENTO is primarily a high-quality remote audio transport/collaboration tool, not necessarily the whole recording platform. If your workflow is "I need to hear my client in real time while I record them into my DAW," it's a particularly interesting choice.

What about Riverside?

Riverside is excellent if you need an easy client-facing recording studio with video, but its current recording settings top out at 48 kHz, so it doesn't meet your high-sample-rate requirement if 96 kHz is important. Riverside Help Center Riverside Help Center

For your use case, I'd therefore think of it this way:

SessionLinkPRO is also worth investigating; it specifically markets bidirectional studio-quality audio with low latency through a browser and is positioned as a professional alternative to ISDN. SessionLinkPRO

If your priority is recording singers/instrumentalists remotely at 96 kHz into your DAW, I'd start with LISTENTO. The key thing I'd want to establish next is whether you need actual local multitrack recording of the remote performer or primarily real-time monitoring/communication while the performer records locally—those lead to somewhat different ideal setups.

For long-form, in-depth remote interviews where recording reliability is the priority, I’d look closely at Zencastr first.

My shortlist

Why Zencastr stands out for your use case: it records each participant locally rather than relying on the quality of the internet connection for the master recording. It also progressively uploads recordings and maintains backups, which is exactly the architecture I'd want for a two- or three-hour interview where losing the recording would be painful. Zencastr Zencastr Help Center

Zencastr currently advertises unlimited recording time, separate tracks, up to 48 kHz WAV audio, and up to 4K video. Its help documentation specifically says paid plans have unlimited audio/video recording with no time limit. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

An especially useful feature for serious interviews is that guests don't need an account or special software on a computer—you can send them a link and have them join from their browser. Zencastr

One important caveat

"Unlimited recording" isn't the same thing as "never worry about your files." I'd still have every guest use headphones, a wired/USB microphone when possible, and I'd download/check the isolated WAV tracks immediately after the interview. Zencastr itself recommends checking downloaded files after uploading. Zencastr Help Center

SquadCast is also worth considering, particularly if you're already using Descript for editing. Its current Creator plan, however, includes 30 recording hours per editor per month, rather than genuinely unlimited recording, so it isn't as clean a fit if you routinely do very long sessions or record frequently. squadcast.fm

Bottom line: for your specific requirement—reliable, potentially several-hour remote interviews with high-quality isolated tracks—I'd choose Zencastr, and I'd prioritize its local recording/backup architecture over features like AI editing.

zencastr.com · squadcast.fm

I’d choose Zencastr for your use case. It explicitly supports no time limit, local recording, separate tracks, automatic backups, and up to 4K video/48 kHz WAV audio. Zencastr Zencastr

• Zencastr: best fit for genuinely long interviews; unlimited recording is available even on its free plan. Zencastr
• Riverside: also strong, but sessions automatically end at 6 hours, so it’s less suitable for very long interviews. support.riverside.com
• Key caveat: with any service, download and verify the separate local tracks immediately after each interview rather than treating cloud storage as your sole backup.

For that workflow, Riverside is a particularly direct fit.

• Producer monitoring: Riverside has a dedicated Producer role. The producer can join silently, monitor each participant’s audio levels and devices, manage guests, and control recording/session settings without becoming part of the recording. Riverside Help Center Riverside
• Isolated guest tracks: Each guest is recorded on their own high-quality track rather than relying on the live call mix. Riverside Help Center
• Remote workflow: Guests simply join through the studio, while your producer can stay behind the scenes monitoring the session. Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm

Zencastr is another good option if your priority is isolated local tracks; it records each participant separately and uploads their recordings rather than using the VoIP call as the master recording. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr Help Center

If what you specifically mean is “producer sits in a control room, hears the guests live, can talk to the host privately, monitors meters, and gets separate WAVs from every remote guest,” I can compare Riverside, Zencastr, SquadCast/Descript, and Boomcaster specifically for that setup.

For a podcast workflow where a producer listens in live, monitors guests, and captures isolated tracks, you’re looking for a remote recording platform with producer/producer-mode access and multitrack local recording. Good fits include:

• Riverside.fm — probably the closest match to your description. A producer can join a session, monitor the recording, manage settings, and stay off the recorded tracks. Riverside records participants on separate tracks for editing. Riverside Help Center Vox Boy

• Best for: video podcasts, interview shows, teams with a dedicated producer.
• SquadCast — supports separate participant tracks and a production workflow where a team member can help manage recordings. Riverside SquadCast

• Best for: audio-first shows, especially if you already edit in Descript.
• Cleanfeed — designed more like a remote broadcast studio: live monitoring, high-quality audio, and multitrack recording. Riverside

• Best for: radio-style production where the producer needs tight live control.
• Zencastr — records separate participant tracks and is built around remote podcast sessions. Zencastr Help Center

• Best for: simpler guest recording workflows.

For the setup you described — “producer in the control room, guests remote, producer listens live and records isolated tracks” — I’d start by evaluating Riverside or Cleanfeed:

• Choose Riverside if you need video, clips, and a modern podcast studio workflow.
• Choose Cleanfeed if the producer’s job is closer to a live audio engineer running a broadcast.

A typical setup would be:

1. Host + guests join the remote studio.
2. Producer joins as a producer/engineer (not a guest).
3. Producer monitors levels and communication.
4. Each guest’s mic is recorded to its own isolated track.
5. Editor receives separate WAV files for mixing. Riverside Help Center Zencastr Help Center

If you mean a producer physically mixing levels during the recording (like a radio board operator) rather than just monitoring, the shortlist changes.

If your priority is “send a link, guest joins from their phone, and we get a clean recording”, I’d shortlist these:

• Riverside — best all-around fit. It supports iOS and Android, records participants locally for higher-quality tracks, and is designed around remote interviews. PodStack Content Allies
• Zencastr — good if you want something simpler and more audio/podcast-oriented. Its guest workflow is browser-based, though Android mobile support is a significant limitation according to current documentation. PodStack Cutsio
• SquadCast — worth considering if recording reliability is your main concern, particularly if you're already using Descript for editing. PodStack
• StreamYard — simpler if you're more interested in straightforward video interviews/live shows than maximum recording-production features. Iris

For your specific use case

I'd start with Riverside. The combination of phone apps, remote local recording, separate tracks, and a relatively straightforward guest experience makes it a good match for interviewing people who may not be technically savvy. PodStack THAT Toronto Podcast Studio

The important distinction is phone-based guest vs. phone-based host. If you mean guests should be able to pull out an iPhone or Android, tap a link, and participate without a laptop, Riverside is particularly worth testing.

If you tell me (1) iPhone only or iPhone + Android, (2) audio-only or video, and (3) whether guests should need to install an app, I can narrow it down to the simplest option.

If your main requirement is “guests can join easily from their phones and I can record the interview”, I’d shortlist these:

My pick by scenario

• You interview non-technical guests who will join from phones:

→ Riverside. Send a link, have them join on mobile, record, and download separate tracks. www.peerthroughmedia.comcontentallies.com

• You only need audio interviews (radio/podcast style):

→ Zencastr or SquadCast. podstackhq.com

• You want the easiest workflow for editing clips for social media:

→ Riverside, because it combines recording with editing/repurposing tools. riverside.com

• You’re interviewing executives, customers, or people who hate installing apps:

→ Test the exact phone flow first. The best tool is the one your guests can join without needing a tech support call.

For a simple setup, I’d start with Riverside: host creates a room → sends guest link → guest joins on phone → record → export tracks. www.peerthroughmedia.comcontentallies.com

If you tell me audio only vs video, iPhone/Android mix, and number of guests per interview, I can narrow it to one.

For non-technical academic guests, I’d start with Riverside. It’s browser-based, guests can join from a link, and current comparisons consistently highlight its simple guest flow and local recording. Best Creates Riverside

• Riverside — Best if you want polished audio + video and minimal guest hand-holding.
• Zencastr — Very straightforward, particularly for audio-first interviews; guests can join via browser without installing software. hellohilite.com
• Zoom — Easiest psychologically because academics are likely already familiar with it, but recording quality is less podcast-oriented. podstackhq.com
• SquadCast — Simple guest experience and strong recording workflow, especially if you already use Descript. podstackhq.com

For your particular use case: Riverside vs. Zoom is probably the key decision: maximum recording quality with very little guest friction vs. maximum familiarity.

For an academic podcast with non-technical interviewees, I’d prioritize “Can I send them one link and have them successfully record without a tutorial?” over having the most sophisticated production features.

My shortlist

1. Riverside — probably the best fit

Guests can join through a browser from a link, without installing anything or creating an account. The guest workflow is essentially: click link → enter name → allow microphone/camera → choose mic/headphones → join. Riverside Help Center Riverside

The important part for a podcast is that Riverside records participants locally, rather than simply recording the internet call. It then uploads the individual tracks, so a guest's momentary Wi-Fi problems don't necessarily ruin the recording. Riverside

For academics, I particularly like the workflow because you can send an interviewee something as simple as:

“At our scheduled time, click this link. Please use headphones if possible. The site will walk you through the rest.”

Riverside also supports both computer and mobile participation. Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm

2. Zencastr — excellent alternative, especially for audio-only

Zencastr is similarly guest-friendly: guests don't need an account, and on a computer they can join from a link without downloading anything. Zencastr

It also records separate tracks locally, which is what I'd want for an academic interview where the conversation may be impossible to recreate. Zencastr

One caveat: its current browser support is more restrictive than Riverside's—it supports Chrome, Edge and Brave on computers, but not Safari, and mobile recording requires its iPhone/iPad app. Zencastr Help Center

zencastr.com

What I'd choose for your podcast

I'd start with Riverside. Not because it necessarily produces a dramatically better recording than the alternatives, but because your particular bottleneck is the interviewee, not the recording engineer.

For a professor, researcher, author, or other academic who says “I'm not very good with technology,” the combination of:

• one invitation link
• no software installation
• no guest account
• guided microphone/camera setup
• separate local tracks
• automatic uploading

is a very good match. Riverside Riverside Help Center

One thing I'd avoid making your primary workflow is asking guests to install a DAW or record themselves separately. Even though that can produce excellent audio, it shifts technical responsibility onto the person you're interviewing.

If you tell me (a) audio-only vs. video, (b) your approximate budget, and (c) whether you edit in Descript/Audition/Audacity/etc., I can narrow this down to the best 1–2 choices for your particular academic podcast.

For academics, I particularly like the workflow because you can send an interviewee something as simple as:

“At our scheduled time, click this link. Please use headphones if possible. The site will walk you through the rest.”

Riverside also supports both computer and mobile participation. Riverside Help Center

riverside.fm

2. Zencastr — excellent alternative, especially for audio-only

Zencastr is similarly guest-friendly: guests don't need an account, and on a computer they can join from a link without downloading anything. zencastr.com

It also records separate tracks locally, which is what I'd want for an academic interview where the conversation may be impossible to recreate. zencastr.com

One caveat: its current browser support is more restrictive than Riverside's—it supports Chrome, Edge and Brave on computers, but not Safari, and mobile recording requires its iPhone/iPad app.

Yes. If your requirements are automatic transcripts + separate audio stems/tracks for every guest, the strongest fit is descript.com with its Rooms recorder.

• Separate guest tracks: Rooms records each participant locally and keeps separate audio/video tracks, so you can export or edit each guest independently. Descript Descript
• Automatic transcription: recordings are automatically transcribed, with speaker identification/labels. Descript Descript
• Transcript + multitrack together: Descript specifically supports multitrack transcription and exporting sessions while retaining separate tracks. Higher-tier plans also provide timeline exports for Pro Tools, Logic, Audition, Premiere, Reaper, etc. Descript
• Remote guests: Rooms supports up to 10 participants and records locally rather than relying on the call audio stream. Descript
• If you already use Riverside: Descript now has a one-click Riverside → Descript integration, bringing recordings into Descript already transcribed and ready to edit. Descript

Practical choice

If you want one platform from recording → transcript → individual guest stems → editing/export, I'd look at Descript Rooms first.

If you primarily want a dedicated remote recording platform and already have a separate editing workflow, Riverside is also worth considering; its recordings provide separate audio/video tracks per guest and automatic transcription. Descript

If you tell me how many guests you typically have, whether it's audio-only or video, and whether the final stems need to go into Pro Tools/Logic/Audition, I can narrow this down to the most suitable 2–3 platforms.

For your specific workflow—automatic transcripts + a separate clean audio stem for each guest—the strongest fits are Descript and Riverside.

• Descript — probably the closest match if you want recording, transcription, and editing in one place. Its recording studio captures separate audio/video tracks per participant, automatically transcribes the session, and puts the recording directly into its transcript-based editor. Descript Descript
• Riverside — particularly good if your priority is high-quality isolated guest stems. It records each participant locally and provides separate, synchronized audio/video tracks, while also generating transcripts and captions. Riverside Riverside
• SquadCast + Descript — SquadCast's recording workflow is integrated with Descript, so recordings can flow into Descript already transcribed and ready for editing. Descript

What I'd choose for this requirement

If you mean:

“We record a remote interview, automatically get a transcript with speaker attribution, and download Guest 1.wav, Guest 2.wav, Guest 3.wav separately.”

I'd shortlist Riverside first, with Descript as the alternative if transcript-based editing is more important than the recording workflow.

Riverside explicitly supports separate tracks for each participant and transcript generation, whereas Descript's big advantage is that the transcript and multitrack recording are tightly integrated into the editing environment. Descript Riverside

If you tell me how many guests you typically have and whether you need video too, I can narrow this down to the best 2–3 platforms and compare their stem export format, transcript export (TXT/SRT/VTT/CSV), speaker labels, API/Zapier support, and pricing.

For privacy-sensitive remote interviews, there’s an important distinction: E2EE for the live conversation is not necessarily the same as E2EE for the recording.

Practical choice

If you need high-quality remote interview recording plus E2EE for the recordings themselves, Riverside is the more directly aligned option based on its current security documentation. It offers local recording for each participant and separately recorded audio/video tracks, while its business documentation says E2EE applies to calls and recordings. Riverside Riverside

If your priority is minimizing the provider's ability to access the interview at all, Zoom with E2EE + local recording is another approach. The trade-off is significant: enabling E2EE disables cloud recording and several convenience features. Zoom

For genuinely sensitive interviews, I'd also verify where recordings are stored, who holds the encryption keys, retention/deletion policies, transcription/AI processing, and whether administrators can access recordings—because simply seeing "encrypted" in a product's security documentation doesn't necessarily mean the provider cannot decrypt the data.

For privacy-sensitive remote interviews, the clearest documented option I found is Riverside.

• Riverside — Its Business/Enterprise documentation explicitly says it provides end-to-end encryption on every call and recording, alongside SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 compliance. It also records each participant locally and uploads the tracks separately. Riverside Riverside Help Center
• Zencastr — Uses an encrypted VoIP call and records each participant locally on their device, which reduces exposure of the actual recording to network problems. However, the documentation I found does not make the same explicit claim that the recording itself is end-to-end encrypted. Zencastr Help Center

Important distinction

"Encrypted" and "end-to-end encrypted" (E2EE) aren't interchangeable. For highly confidential interviews—journalism, research involving sensitive participants, whistleblower conversations, etc.—I'd verify specifically:

1. Whether audio/video content is E2EE, not merely the connection.
2. Whether the provider can decrypt recordings on its servers.
3. Whether cloud backups, transcripts, AI processing, and shared links are covered.
4. Whether encryption keys are controlled by the provider or by you.
5. Whether recordings can be kept off the provider's cloud entirely.

So, based on the vendors' current documentation, Riverside is the one I'd investigate first if explicit E2EE recording is a hard requirement. Riverside

If you tell me whether these are journalistic interviews, academic research, legal/confidential interviews, or something else, I can compare the relevant tools specifically for that threat model.

Yes. If archival-quality, lossless audio per participant is the requirement, there are a few strong options.

My main choices

Riverside is particularly well suited if your priority is preserving a master-quality original. Its raw audio is uncompressed WAV using linear PCM, with 16-bit depth and 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on the studio settings. Each participant's recording is separate. Riverside Help Center

riverside.com

Zencastr is similarly well suited. It records each participant separately and currently advertises 16-bit/48 kHz WAV. Importantly for archival work, the recording happens locally on the participant's device rather than simply recording the compressed conference stream. Zencastr Help Center Zencastr

zencastr.com

One important archival distinction

For preservation, I'd specifically look for:

participant microphone → local PCM/WAV → uploaded original

rather than:

participant microphone → live compressed codec → server recording → WAV export

The latter can produce a .wav file that is technically lossless from that point onward, but the information lost during the earlier compression cannot be recovered. Riverside explicitly describes its raw audio as locally recorded, uncompressed PCM WAV, while Zencastr similarly uses local recording and provides WAV tracks. Riverside Help Center Zencastr Help Center

For an archival project, I'd also preserve the original/raw WAVs untouched, rather than using AI noise reduction, leveling, or other enhancement on your preservation masters. Both platforms offer processed/enhanced audio in addition to their raw tracks. Zencastr Help Center Riverside Help Center

If you tell me whether this is oral-history interviews, music, podcasts, meetings, or something else, I can narrow this down further and include options that support 24-bit WAV, higher sample rates, BWF metadata, checksums, and proper archival preservation workflows.

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.