does MacBook Pro need a DAC?

If you watch movies, then it is definitely better to take advantage of your receiver's DAC/surround sound processor.

If you listen to music (and that is the impression I get), give your receiver's DAC a try and keep it that way if you like the sound. If you want even better sound quality, go for a better, standalone DAC.

(Was it Neil Young who recently said that the Macbook Pro has Fisher-Price audio quality?) 

listen to  ddude003  .... the dude got wisdom !

I run a USB Audio to my McIntosh MA8900 and it works fine. Not the best out there for sure (given the limitations of the MacBook) but it is affordable until I get a better solution.

i listen to Tidal. Master tapes are favorites of course. Based on what you all said here, I decided to go with an option I can afford at the moment, Shiit Midi 3. My tastes are eclectic but tend to new classical music. Will post my experience with the DAC, after I get it. 
Badger_erich: Could you, please, post if/when you find a different solution from the one you currently use? I have a Rotel and B&W 805s at the other end. am already quite happy with the sound 
thanks to you all. I really appreciate you taking time to help me.

If money is an issue, you can get Audirvana for $79.00  It is a vast improvement on the built in DAC. 

Either i'm missing something here or need to point out an error.  Audirvana is a media player (software). It is not a hardware digital-to-analog converter.  If you use Audirvana (or itunes or any other player) you still need a DAC to physically create the analog wave-form from the code.  The MBP has a cheap one built in.  You can buy external, better ones from $100 -->> $10,000, with diminishing marginal returns.
Someone also asked about the superdrive.  In general any such removable, optical media, compared to playing the ripped file off the HDD or SSD (better) will generate higher noise at minimum. Whether you find this significant depends on many factors that i wont get into.