What makes you think the LED spectrum can not be shaped so it reaches the CRI98?
E.g. assembling the dies with varying wavelength to spread the blue peak you so like to hate... :-)
Yes, such creation would be ridiculously expensive, fiddly and maybe even not that much efficient.
Would it make any practical sense? No. Except maybe satisfying some "purist"...

The only place I think a 98CRI LED would worth is in a film or photography studio. Incandescent lighting is perfect for that, but in such studios the sessions are long and it would be way too expensive, because there will be at least 10kw of light.

high CRI LEDs in the other hand might cost 3k each, but at long term it becones convenient. That would be for a middle size or big studio, but for an individual or amateur that wouldn't worth and it would be better to keep the existing 1kw incandescent setup or the poor CRI CFLs or LEDs.

The only place I think a 98CRI LED would worth is in a film or photography studio. Incandescent lighting is perfect for that, but in such studios the sessions are long and it would be way too expensive, because there will be at least 10kw of light.

high CRI LEDs in the other hand might cost 3k each, but at long term it becones convenient. That would be for a middle size or big studio, but for an individual or amateur that wouldn't worth and it would be better to keep the existing 1kw incandescent setup or the poor CRI CFLs or LEDs.

There you need lighting that renders the colors correctly on the used camera equipment. Because the camera spectral sensitivities differ from eye (see how a scene illuminated by MV is looking to naked eye vs via a photo camera), the nonidealities it can tolerate differ too. But the CRI is defined for direct eyes only. Mainly the picture acquisition (both film, as well as electronic) are very sensitive on the CCT, but the eyes aren't (assume uniform CCT illumination).
So e.g. an MH with CRI70 and CCT5600K may still render colors on TV cameras way better than a regular incandescent with CRI100 (OK, "just" 99.99999), but CCT just 2700K. Plus many sensors are parasitically sensitive to IR or UV, so even when not actually visible light for the eye, the IR and UV content does affect the picture color quality, so has to be kept under control (= to some extent match the property of daylight).

So light sources designed for film/photo which perform really well there do not necessarily posses really high CRI and vice versa, a high CRI lamp may still yield inferior image. And of course the film/photo lighting has to take into account the sensing method used and its specific requirement. A lamp designed for chemical film wont perform that well for solid state electronic sensors, nor vacuum tube based sensors (vidicon triplets,...). Each requires slightly different spectrum (of course unless the spectrum is exactly matching the daylight). The thing is, each sensing is tolerant or sensitive to different imperfections in the spectrum. And these sensitivities have to be observed. Making perfect daylight spectrum would of course yield good image with all sensors, but would lead to very low efficacy and unnecessary complications. Light source exploiting the aspects the sensors are highly tolerant yield he best compromise between cost, efficacy and picture quality, but have to be tailored to the type of sensors used. And that is the way the industry uses.
Today the situation gets simplified, as virtually all sensors in professional use are silicon CMOS solid state, which have all the same spectral sensitivities.

@Medved The color response of a camera is different from our eyes, but they are more similar than you think, so a good CRI light will still make the difference. The response peaks of a camera are very wide and deform because the color filters are not perfect, in a similar way as our eyes. That's why they are paying ridiculous amounts for almost perfect CRI LEDs, otherwise they would keep the 70 CRI LEDs from Ebay or halophosphore fluorescent lights.

Althought CCD, CMOS, vidicon and probably chemical film are very sensitive to the infrarred light, all the cameras have their respective IR and UV blocking filter, otherwise you wouldn't be able to even take footage at sunlight because the camera would be blasting in a pinkish color, and it would look unnatural under B/W cameras, because e.g. a black object might look white on the tv, some objects behave differently under IR light, so it is better to block IR even in B/W cameras.

@Medved The color response of a camera is different from our eyes, but they are more similar than you think, so a good CRI light will still make the difference. The response peaks of a camera are very wide and deform because the color filters are not perfect, in a similar way as our eyes. That's why they are paying ridiculous amounts for almost perfect CRI LEDs, otherwise they would keep the 70 CRI LEDs from Ebay or halophosphore fluorescent lights.

Althought CCD, CMOS, vidicon and probably chemical film are very sensitive to the infrarred light, all the cameras have their respective IR and UV blocking filter, otherwise you wouldn't be able to even take footage at sunlight because the camera would be blasting in a pinkish color, and it would look unnatural under B/W cameras, because e.g. a black object might look white on the tv, some objects behave differently under IR light, so it is better to block IR even in B/W cameras.

What I want to say you need a "kind of CRI",  but measured according the camera needs and not the eyes. So what is CRI95 for eyes (e.g. premium general lighting product), could be barely "CRI80" for the camera and vice versa, a high end photo flood light may give "cameraCRI95", but barely 80 for general illumination use. The CCT is an example: For eyes it won't matter, eyes adopt. But on camera it looks weird, even when you apply the correction. That is, why photo industry liked to operate incandescents just few degrees short of the melting point and accept lamp life counted in hours.
The special photo illumination LEDs is the way to go. And why they are expensive? Photo/film industry is willing to pay a lot, so the special products the industry needs, just sell for a lot. But thinking you can use whatever high CRI general lighting and get away with it in a cheap way will leave you disappointed.

I haven't heard from the guy since. I think he got bored being a troll.

But he is spreading misinformation still on other quora answers.

I believe i see some bugs in his argument and minimal sources for it.

350 lumens per watt? I want a little of whatever this dude is on.  Seems like he's just trying to sound smart though.

But he is spreading misinformation still on other quora answers.

I believe i see some bugs in his argument and minimal sources for it.

Absolutely, because he has no sources at all. Insist him for all his sources, he will be quiet for quite a while. I bet he will pull sources from sketchy LED manufacturers or dodgy Facebook newsletters. 

350 lumens per watt? I want a little of whatever this dude is on.  Seems like he's just trying to sound smart though.

But he is spreading misinformation still on other quora answers.

I believe i see some bugs in his argument and minimal sources for it.

I see too many spelling and grammar errors.
He’s clearly just trolling.

I see too many spelling and grammar errors.
He’s clearly just trolling.

Looks more like a typical activist id$ot. Knows nothing, writes a ton of BS, stretches it beyond reason ignoring the fundamentals (like laws of thermodynamics,...)

Looks more like a typical activist id$ot. Knows nothing, writes a ton of BS, stretches it beyond reason ignoring the fundamentals (like laws of thermodynamics,...)

He could perfectly be a paid "activist" or "advertiser" by a store or manufacturer, spreading BS aka advertising among reddit or forums, where people make their questions, and what's better than put your ads there. It is similar to the "bots" who rate 5 stars in Aliexpress listings.

I think he trying to force people to move from incandescent to LED by this way.