Re: much better light quality?
No, he's absolutely right that LEDs have too long a wavelength to excite a decent phosphor mix.
As somebody working the the field of LED illumination (at the middle to absolute top end), I see a lot of the details that most people never would.
Near-UV LEDs do exist, but they are fairly low efficacy and have short lifetimes. Far-UV is basically unknown outside the lab - the efficacy and lifetime are just too poor to be worth it (yet).
Almost every "White" LED you can buy is a Blue LED painted with a thin layer of yellow phosphor. The approx. colour temperature (CCT) is mostly decided by the thickness/density of the phosphor layer - thicker layers let less of the blue through - thus higher colour temps are more efficacious, but look worse.
This obviously makes it really hard to make the same White LED twice!
There have been some interesting experiments with LED lamps - Philips did a really nice "remote phosphor" lamp (it had external clip-on phosphor-impregnated panels), there was an excellent Red+White that red-shifted while dimming, and earlier in the year narrowband RGB mixes were being tried out, which are much more repeatable than "White" LED as you don't have to control the thickness of the phosphor layer.
Unfortunately I fear that innovation at the domestic end of the market may be over now that both Samsung and Philips have exited the market.
Philips were (and still are) absolutely terrible at the high-brightness end (the PL4 is just embarrassingly bad), but they made some really good domestic lamps.