What are the pros and cons of using digital-to-analog converters (DACs) for audio playback and monitoring?

I've never heard of transducers being called "analog audio converters." By this lingo, digital recording requires TWO "conversions." It first has to be "analog converted" into an electrical signal, and then that electrical signal has to be converted into a binary stream. This is very confusing. For clarity, it would be best to use the word "conversion" in this discussion for the process of changing analog-to-digital (ADC) or digital-to-analog (DAC). Transducing sound waves into electrical signals is "recording." Transducing electrical signals into sound waves is "playback." Those two things happen in both digital and analog recording, and therefore don't really add much to this discussion.

“digital audio converters require more power and resources to operate and maintain” DACs require more resources to operate and maintain than an analog tape machine?

There aren't really any cons. To participate in the modern recording world, at some point, you're going to use AD/DA. Your only alternative is to record to tape, which some people do, but anyone reading an article at this level will never be setting up and maintaining a tape machine. Furthermore, in home and "prosumer" arenas, the interface will have mic preamps on it. These are analog and you will receive the benefits of "analog" from them.

It's a little bit disheartening to see this kind of machine learning generated filler content in what's supposed to be a space for professional engagement. These kinds of articles at best regurgitate basic information, and at worst are actively misleading. This article contains no useful information for anybody because it was not written by a person who knows what they're talking about, but by an artificial "intelligence" that does not understand the context of the words it is assembling. And I say "assembling" because no writing was done here, except by the people whose works this AI scrubbed in order to create content. I can't wait until we're done pretending that machine learning will ever replace real writing.

Am sorry, but this is a very misleading article. As J Dahl commented above, the only time you won't need an analogue to digital or digital to analogue converter will be if you record on tape with no computer involved. If you're using a PC you'll be relying on the inbuilt A to D or D to A converter. If you want better quality, buy a converter, it'll do both analogue to digital and digital to analogue using a USB socket along with Jack sockets or XLR sockets for your audio source and audio output. Pay at least ￡100 for it and you'll be doing OK, pay more and most of the time it will be better for the job. That's it, nothing else is relevant.

To be really clear, if you plug a record deck or tape machine into your PC and are happy with the quality it records, you do not need to buy an analogue to digital / digital to analogue converter. The converter inside the PC is doing it's job. If you want better quality than that, buy a separate A to D / D to A converter. However it won't improve the quality unless you pay at least ￡100, if you're a serious audiophile, be prepared to pay even more.