Am I nuts or what?

Most common reason for digital sounding so bad...poor mixing or mastering. Also, the transfer to cd; there are just so many steps one can screw up to make a bad sounding cd. I can understand one's love for vinyl (I'm still digital, but moved to tubes) but a well recorded cd sounds fantastic.

almost all vinyls after 80's were digitally mixed and i see nothing wrong in sound on most of them. WATT, ECM labels made out every recording excellent.
although i can't just through digital despite not paying too much attention on upgrading my digital combo connected with simple and cheapo Canare digital cable. whatever i cannot acquire on LP i go for cd especially for the new modern jazz recordings Scofield, Stern, etc...
some of Frank Zappa recordings never were released on vinyl.

You're probably not nuts. (Well, you're an audiophile, so you probably ARE nuts, but that's not what's relevant here.) There are two possible explanations for what's going on here. One, as others have said, is bad mastering. There's no guarantee that the LP and CD used the same digital master. Two is that there are things about vinyl that make it sound good. Lots of people think LPs sound "richer" and CDs "thinner." (There's a lot of debate in certain circles about just why that is.) Looks like you've had a very common experience.

Hey ntscdan...I just listened to that same LP a few months back. I didn't compare it to the CD, but I did notice the early digital effect on the recording. It just doesn't sound right in many ways. I've noticed that same thing with other albums from the 80s where people went digital a little too early...the technology wasn't mature yet. I really like Todd Rundgren's "Nearly Human" album, but the combination of the early all digital recording and his mixing (he has tinitinitis) makes it unlistenable to me.

The original digital studio masters probably sound very good, possibly even wonderful.

When an original high bit rate digital master is converted directly to analog, the LP format renders the data very well. When that same digital master is mixed so far down to meet the 21 year old Redbook standard, a good bit of the data is lost.

The same principal applies to digital photography. Super high bit digital captures (originals) and super high quality conversions from analog (film) are almost equal at preservation of the original quality.

As an example (photographically), a perfect digital transfer from a single frame of a Hasselblad (medium format camera) requires a scan of about 500 MB. Making a single analog frame occupy much of the data space on a CDR.

If a digital format were offered that preserved 100% of the original digital material, analog fans may view digital as equal to analog.

This probably would require a format of greater capacity than the current CD or even the SACD. Perhaps a dual layer DVD.

Unfortunately there is no incentive for record companies to offer that quality when so many of today's listeners are satisfied with MP3.