Synopsis
Riverside is a popular platform for recording remote interviews, but one of its core functions—dual-track recording that separates high-quality audio tracks for each participant—is not unique to Riverside. Depending on one’s workflow and technical requirements, the same function can be achieved with less expensive or free alternatives. Dedicated recording platforms provide equivalent functionality at a lower cost, while built-in features of common video conferencing tools such as Zoom are sufficient for some workflows, albeit sacrificing quality for ease of use. Where high audio fidelity is required, a double-ender recording workflow provides the best quality at no cost, though it requires participant coordination. Here I outline several alternatives to Riverside and recommend different approaches based on several use cases.
1. Dual-track recording
For reliable dual-track audio recording for remote interviews or meetings, there are several alternatives to Riverside.fm that are cheaper and simpler. For instance, Zencastr offers the same dual-track functionality in their free plan. SquadCast also does, though with limited monthly recording hours at the free level. Similar services offer this same basic feature at similar or lower prices as Riverside. A free professional-grade option is OBS Studio, though it comes with a steep learning curve.
It is also possible to make dual-track recordings without the use of a specific platform or software beyond general video conferencing tools. For instance, Zoom can automatically save separate audio tracks per participant; just activate “Record a separate audio file for each participant” in Settings. However, Zoom compresses audio, unlike the specialized programs like Riverside. The audio quality of a Zoom recording may be good enough for some workflows, but if you need high-fidelity audio, there are additional steps to take.
2. Double-ender workflow
If the biggest concern is sync/audio quality, a double-ender workflow has both participants recording locally on their own computer using Audacity or a similar program while using a video conferencing program like Zoom for the visual side, with the separate audio tracks function enabled. Save the Zoom recording to your computer and then combine both participants’ synced local tracks afterward (e.g., in Davinci Resolve or similar editing suite), ensuring high-quality audio synced to the Zoom video recording.
This is the gold standard for many podcasters and other professions who need high-quality audio, but it requires participant cooperation and more post-production work. Some contributors may not have the technical skills (though they are fairly basic) required to make this work effectively. I would use this approach if you can trust that the contributor in question can figure out how to record to Audacity on their end; otherwise, consider other options, or simply settling for Zoom’s in-house compressed audio on separate tracks.
3. Workflow recommendations
- If effective participant coordination is possible and high-quality audio is necessary, use a double-ender workflow using Audacity and Zoom
- If effective participant coordination is not possible and high-quality audio is necessary, use the dual-track functionality of Zencastr, OBS Studio, or an equivalent free program
- If effective participant coordination is not possible and high-quality audio is not necessary, use Zoom by itself with multi-track recording enabled
Related
2.2 InterPod production checklist
2.4 InterDialogue production checklist
2.6 Podcasting platforms
3.1 Audiovisual recording best practices
3.9 Transcription software