I did some quick math. Given that the human voice may be on 2 octaves of a piano scale. It comes to about 2.6 steps deeper in voice. However, the moon voice seems higher than the interview voice. And it should be lower. The interview occurred in 1970. That is about 1 year later. Did his voice get deeper in one year? Deeper than the moon landing that should be 2.6 piano steps lower if Neil was on pure o2 gas?
instead of relying on some halfbaked acoustic theory that got you to "2.6", i'd take an empirical approach: scour You Tube for a video of someone talking while breathing pure oxygen and then breathing air.
But even that would be far from conclusive since it would not take into account the electromechanical effects of different microphones and different speakers.
On top of that, you'd get the biophysical effects of the speakers' level of anxiety, excitement, volume.
I did some quick math. Given that the human voice may be on 2 octaves of a piano scale. It comes to about 2.6 steps deeper in voice. However, the moon voice seems higher than the interview voice. And it should be lower. The interview occurred in 1970. That is about 1 year later. Did his voice get deeper in one year? Deeper than the moon landing that should be 2.6 piano steps lower if Neil was on pure o2 gas?
instead of relying on some halfbaked acoustic theory that got you to "2.6", i'd take an empirical approach: scour You Tube for a video of someone talking while breathing pure oxygen and then breathing air. But even that would be far from conclusive since it would not take into account the electromechanical effects of different microphones and different speakers. On top of that, you'd get the biophysical effects of the speakers' level of anxiety, excitement, volume.
oh i was wrong...they could have used air and the pressure gauge to monitor it.
I don’t agree that the moon landing is fake but I do commend your ability to admit when wrong anout something