Ok, considering 3800 and 4800 should be identical on the software side, this sounds reassuring. Thanks for sharing.
No worries

I only have a very suboptimal living room setup though, my speakers and the MLP don't sit symmetrical in the room and along the smaller axis rather than the more optimal longitudinal axis and I sit very close to the back wall. However, still get a very smooth response in the deep bass and du to the very "leaky" soft walls of my very old wooden house, which absorb a lot of bass instead of reinforcing it, I actually get pretty good decay times in the deep bass as well.
I feel like every subwoofer I added, did improve the sound with going from one to two representing the most noticeable change. Getting a third and a fourth also contributed more than I thought though, mostly in terms of offering an even more enveloping sound, coming even more "from all around" and offering more sense of pressure at lower volumes. I only recently upgraded to more than two subs though (I had two Arendal 1723 1S and bought two additional used SVS SB13U, and in between I had 3 subs running for a few weeks). So maybe replacing the Arendals with two bigger ones (more driver surface area) would have had a similar effect, no idea...
If I had to guess though, I'd suspect more subs is better but they have to be the same subs or at least similar in performance. I had an old SVS SB 2000 running as a third sub in tandem with the two Arendals for a while but it didn't sound that good, the SVS just couldn't quite keep up with the Arendals. So they didn't gel that well. When I got the two SVS SB13, I at first only switched out the SB 2000 with an SB13 to see if it worked better (in the exact same spot) and oh yes, it did. Immediately, I thought: "Finally I got my punch back". The bigger SB13 matched the Arendals way better - which makes sense since they are similar in size and performance.
I kept this 3-sub-setup for a few weeks and I quite enjoyed it, it had more punch and deep bass power, I felt "more pressure" than with only two but I had a similar feeling than
I found a third sub to be better than just two (although I only tried one position) but the fourth sub balanced it out even more, now I have two in the front and two in the back on either side of the couch (but I have a very suboptimal setup since it's a living room so it's not symmetrical).
I'm currently very happy with the four subs and I think Dirac did a pretty good job integrating them. Still, I'm constantly wondering, if four identical subs would sound better Sometimes I think the bass could be a touch more dry but overall I'm pretty happy and the four 13" give me a ton of punch in my 19m2 room!
Here are some measurements (all L+R+Subs, XO 80Hz, with Dirac BC on my Denon 4800):
Two subs (one in the front middle one in the back left):

Three subs (one in the front middle one in the back left, one in the back right):

With the SB 2000 in the system, it measured good as well but it didn't sound very good.
This is how it looks now with four subs:
As you can see, Dirac didn't make anything worse FR-wise like in
@slaweks case. However, in my case, it also didn't have to do much since the FR was already excellent with only two subs after Dirac (or Audyssey + plus some manual phase adjustments). It certainly doesn't sound the same though. Four subs (or even three) just give me more presence/ sense of pressure and the bass comes even more from "all around". The headroom isn't really that important for me as I generally listen to very low volumes (somewhere between -25 to -35 depending on the content) and I don't like to set the bass more than ~5db hot as it doesn't sound coherent to me anymore with more bass boost but the bass still sounds and feels better/more forceful with more subs - even at my volume level.