You're probably right it was less significant, but both Norse and French have certainly contributed sounds to English.
Scandinavian speakers tend to struggle with the w/v distinction at the start of words for example, because most of our dialects do not have a distinction like that and so many of us learn one of them and use it all over the place. English appear to have imported the sound as in vacation when it imported most of the words (including valley) starting with it.
Another example is how when I first learned English in Norway the teacher spent a whole lesson early on drilling the pronunciation of the ch in chair (from Old French; compare "stol", Norwegian for chair vs. English "stool") because the sound was completely foreign to us but confusingly similar to e.g. the skj in skjorte (shirt; the skj is pronounced almost the same as the sh in shirt, depending on dialect)
So it may have had less impact on changing the phonology of Germanic words in particular (though I'm curious about some as Norman French changed the orthography of many words that used to be pronounced in the Germanic way but that now match the Norman orthography - e.g. hus to house - did the pronunciation change first?), but the sheer volume of French words that in at least some cases brought with them different sounds means it certainly contributed to the overall English phonology appearing more foreign to us.
> from Old French; compare "stol", Norwegian for chair vs. English "stool"
"Stol" also exists in French, in a way. Frankish *faldistoel -> Modern French fauteuil.
> though I'm curious about some as Norman French changed the orthography of many words that used to be pronounced in the Germanic way but that now match the Norman orthography - e.g. hus to house - did the pronunciation change first?
The pronunciation of "house" changed with the Great Vowel Shift, that's much posterior to the Norman era and concurrent to the emancipation of English.
> but the sheer volume of French words that in at least some cases brought with them different sounds means it certainly contributed to the overall English phonology appearing more foreign to us.
Don't start from the assumption that your own language represents a purer form of Germanic linguistic features (though it may).
> Don't start from the assumption that your own language represents a purer form of Germanic linguistic features (though it may).
The point is not that its "purer", but that - as was the point of the start of this discussion where someone noted the similarity of the "older" part of the recording to Swedish - that the languages in question certainly appears to have sounded more similar. It doesn't mean the Scandinavian languages haven't diverged too, but moving towards the shared root still sheds many of the changes that have caused the languages to diverge.
You're certainly right that much of that change will have been internal too, though there are certainly examples that still sounds much more foreign to us because the sounds are just not present or not present in the same positions, and at least some of those in English were imported from French. It may well be that they seem more prominent to us because they're typically accompanying words that are extra foreign to us, as so it's quite possible older English "sounds" more Scandinavian to us not because the sounds are that much closer but just as much because the vocabulary is.
Scandinavian speakers tend to struggle with the w/v distinction at the start of words for example, because most of our dialects do not have a distinction like that and so many of us learn one of them and use it all over the place. English appear to have imported the sound as in vacation when it imported most of the words (including valley) starting with it.
Another example is how when I first learned English in Norway the teacher spent a whole lesson early on drilling the pronunciation of the ch in chair (from Old French; compare "stol", Norwegian for chair vs. English "stool") because the sound was completely foreign to us but confusingly similar to e.g. the skj in skjorte (shirt; the skj is pronounced almost the same as the sh in shirt, depending on dialect)
So it may have had less impact on changing the phonology of Germanic words in particular (though I'm curious about some as Norman French changed the orthography of many words that used to be pronounced in the Germanic way but that now match the Norman orthography - e.g. hus to house - did the pronunciation change first?), but the sheer volume of French words that in at least some cases brought with them different sounds means it certainly contributed to the overall English phonology appearing more foreign to us.