I blame the naming conventions. I hope someone can help you, because I'd have to spend a day of trial and error to figure this out, and I use the arp creation stuff a lot, just not in this manner, because every time I did I needed another day of trial and error to get it to do what you're asking, even if I'd done something similar the day before.

I agree that the naming conventions and general workflow is confusing.

This is where it's important to relate the poor name choices and sometimes bewildering options to your own language with a notebook. A rosetta stone of sorts. It need not be a literal notebook - but it's not a bad suggestion to document things for reference in your own native "language".

The tutorials, although somewhat a speed-bump because you may not want to spend the time working your keyboard as an exercise, are a good place to start. The time invested will most likely help clear up misunderstandings and give you a foundation to relate to the odd naming and also get a feel for what the options do.

I'm sure you started this question because although you are aware there are more comprehensive tutorials available - you just want to know how to do one "simple thing". This is where I believe that short changing the learning may end up working against you in the long run.

https://yamahasynth.com/learn/montage/mastering-montage-arpeggio-making-101-part-i
https://yamahasynth.com/learn/MONTAGE%20Series%20Synthesizers/mastering-montage-arpeggio-making-101-part-ii
https://yamahasynth.com/learn/montage/montage-the-4-track-arpeggio

Somewhat related arpeggio ...

https://yamahasynth.com/learn/montage/montage-connect-ii-working-user-arpeggios

The suggestions I believe in the articles are to experiment with the arpeggio types so you can form your own understanding of what the different types give you. This learning-by-doing approach is the best way to internalize these concepts in a way that will let you effectively create your own arps.

Thanks, this needs to be read again.
An idea return to my question I think that possible to make long bass sequencion
with actual line like C1-G1-C1-G1-C1-G0-C1-G0 .. C1-E1-G1 etc.
It's seem like Tyros/PSR style with long motive across variation.
This more depends of follow strong harmony but more likely.
I need to try it.

🙂

I was directly addressing this portion of your original post:

fixed notes is understand
original notes not quite...
normal?

How to prepare simple midifile with elementary materials...
chords, bass, octaves?

In general the language barrier sometimes makes it difficult for me to determine any nuance in your question.

I have no idea what's between C1-G1-C1-G1-C1-G0-C1-G0 and C1-E1-G1 because I cannot infer a pattern that would tell me how to fill in those blanks. This is also a deviation from the original request.

I don't know if you're being literal or if between C1-G1-C1-G1 and C1-G0-C1-G0 (the octave change for the 2nd note) - you want to be able to control this somehow. And if you need that control - what you expect this to look like.

Because I do not see a good roadmap for what you want my suggestion continues to be to take your questions about understanding arpeggios and arpeggio creation (quoted, in part, above in this replay) to task and learn what the fundamentals are through the tutorials in order to play the longer game. At the moment only you know what you want. Or try again to explain exactly what you're wanting out of the end result including, if this is part of it, expectations of being able to control variations in the arpeggio.

I assume you want the line to be able to be transposed. Although currently you always show the 1st note as C1. There are lots of gaps in your description of what you are trying to arrive at.

I am more and more convinced that one should not look for a black cat in a black room.
Arpeggio always plays from the beginning and this is also one of the uncontrollable features. Not interesting at all. Compared to SX600 very specific capabilities. It would be better if there was no arpeggio. Let's forget about it.

Agreed! Calling this an arpeggiator was a bit of a stretch. It's as you say... black cat in a black room. Well said!

Digital and Arranger Keyboards have a “Style” engine which is a very different animal from the Arpeggiators as found in the Synthesizers. The articles on this site “Arpeggio Making 101” outline what the Arpeggiators are designed to do and how the different Arp Tracks work to create the data, and how the different Key Modes work when setting up to play them back.

While all Style phrases are musical note-on event, Arp Phrases can also include things like Control Data exclusively.

The mentioned Yamaha PSR-SX600 (Arranger Keyboard) has, of course, a “Style engine” — this is at the core of the Arranger Keyboard concept — the ability to interpret key presses to transform a recognized chord voicing into Perc, Drums, Bass, Chord backing, Multi-Pad, and/or Phrase data accompaniment.

And while a Style engine and an Arpeggiator may have some similarities, they are clearly different. The PSR-SX600 feature a Style engine where you can replace musical Parts with your own custom data, (see Style Creator in the PSR-SX600 Reference Manual, pages 35-50).

The PSR-SX600 also has an Arpeggio feature, (please see this to understand the difference between Style Creator and the Harmony/Arpeggio feature but you cannot make your own User Arpeggios in the Arrangers.
You can, however, create your own Chord Match “Multi Pad” phrases, which behave similarly to how Arp Phrases work).

A read through of the “Style Creator” section in the PSR-SX series Reference Manual and another glance at the definitions and capabilities of the Arpeggio feature as found in the Synthesizers, this may help you understand that while these are both similar in one respect, they are very, very different in reality.

Which is better Genos or Montage?
Please put both in my bag. 🙂