-
I love #4. It is clean, simply stated, but interesting. It has depth and my focus is on the product name, not on a mark. It's better than 5 because the M is easier to see as an M.
My second choice would be #1. Still clean. Interesting font, though I'm not sure it's a good choice (see my 3rd point). In #2 and #3, I see a division sign where the bars are orange, and the color changes get busy. 1-3 also seem familiar, already done. SO many logos have the big swooshy circles.
My one concern is that before I read your description / objectives, I thought this was going to be a perfect logo -- for a sound system company. The big round mark makes me think of a speaker and the bars in #4 & #5 make me think of an equalizer. And the font in #1 feels techie like sound equipment. for ex: www.sonicelectronix.com www.aperionaudio.com
That said, I still really like #4!
Unlike a previous reviewer, I think the logo's context should not matter. It must represent the product and/or company on its own. Logos are used in too many mediums to count on its placement. That said, if this company has other product logos, I do wonder how it fits into that larger picture, or if that matters.
-
Thanks for the comments! I see what you're saying about the speakers.. I saw that right away when I was making the logo and it took me a while to figure out how to make it work. The logo will always be beside graphs though, so I think the context won't get confused with sound systems too often, as it does by itself. And the portal is pretty much a stand alone website. the company itself has a logo (which is hideous) so I couldnt live with myself if I tried to design this with that in mind. But they are similar in colors, so they wouldnt look too off if put together. Thanks for your feedback!