I am not aware of a single respected bible scholar who agrees with your 'miracle of hearing' theory in Acts 2. Many of the commentaries on Acts mention this theory, but they all universally reject it as being untenable:
A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles - Mal Couch (President of Tyndale Theological Seminary)
What Is Speaking in Tongues?
The ability to speak in tongues was the ability to speak in known human languages that were unknown to the speaker. This definition is arrived at by noting that the word for tongue (glossa) is used in the New Testament for the physical organ of the tongue, but it frequently refers to language or speech. At the first manifestation of the gift in Acts 2, Luke carefully described the nature of the gift. When he stated that they "began to speak with other tongues" (Acts 2:4), he used the normal word for language (glossa). He underscored that known human languages were involved when he used the word dialect (dialektos) and then proceeded to tell his readers what languages were being spoken (vv. 6, 8).
Those who heard the tongues speaking on the day of Pentecost were Jews who had been part of the great dispersion of Israel. These had returned to the city of Jerusalem from many parts of the world to celebrate the feast of Pentecost. These Jews, expecting to hear Hebrew and Aramaic, were amazed to hear unschooled Galileans speaking Gentile languages fluently. According to Luke, every person was amazed by the phenomenon because "they were each one hearing them speak in his own language" (2:6). These languages were from almost every part of the Gentile world, both major languages and dialects. These Jews heard that day known languages, not ecstatic utterances.
From the words used and from the context itself, it is abundantly clear that the tongues speaking in Acts 2 had to do with known human languages that were unknown to the ones who spoke. It is a solid rule of biblical interpretation that the meaning of clear passages must determine the meanings in obscure passages. Acts 2 is a passage which clearly describes the gift of tongues.
The matter of tongues speaking is not really dealt with a great deal in the Scriptures. Luke in the book of Acts and Paul in the book of 1 Corinthians give our pertinent information on this phenomenon. The only other passage where tongues is specifically mentioned is Mark 16, where it is said that believers would speak with "new tongues." Robert Gromacki observes:
Assuming that the passage is genuine, the usage of the adjective kainos rather than its synonym neos is noteworthy... kainos refers to the new primarily in reference to quality... whereas neos refers to the recent. It is admitted by all that the phenomenon of speaking in tongues did not occur in the Old Testament or Gospel periods and that it first happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Therefore, if speaking in tongues had involved unknown languages never spoken before, Christ would have used neos (new in time).
But since Heused kainos, this must refer to foreign languages which were new to the speaker, but which had been in existence before."
What About Ecstatic Utterances?
Our understanding of tongues comes from Luke and Paul. Both use glossa for the gift of tongues. Luke and Paul were close companions and laborers for Christ for many years. Both used the same word to describe the same gift. There is no evidence that their definitions of glossa differed in any way. And there is no evidence that the tongues speaking that occurred on the day of Pentecost differed from the tongues speaking that took place at Corinth. Tongues were known human languages.
Since Acts 2 is the first place where the phenomenon occurs, and it is described in detail there, and since there is no further definition or description later on, it must be concluded that the gift of tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in a human language that is unknown to the speaker.
Acts - John B. Polhill (professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Finally, the long list of nations in w. 9-11 is sandwiched between references to people who marvel at hearing the Christians in their own language (vv. 8,11b). The list obviously illustrates the breadth of the languages that were spoken. 6 Awareness of this has led some scholars to postulate a miracle of "hearing.” The usual form of this view assumes that the Christians experienced glossolalia, but the crowd understood this as their own language through a miracle of hearing. This would emphasize the word “hear” in v. 6,11b: “each one heard them speaking in his own language.”77 The major problem with this view is that it presupposes the reception of the Spirit on the part of the crowd. Indeed, if the miracle was in the crowd's hearing rather than in the believers' speaking, one wonders why it was even necessary for Luke to tell of the Spirit's coming so powerfully upon them.
When one's attention is focused on Luke's story of Pentecost, the flow of the narrative does seem to favor the view of a miracle of foreign speech. Filled with the Spirit, the Christians began to speak in tongues different from their own (v.4). A crowd was attracted and utterly amazed to hear these Galileans speaking their languages (v. 7), a crowd that represented the greater portion of the entire Jewish Diaspora (vv. 9-11). Certainly it was an ecstatic experience. The disciples were brim-full of the Spirit. They praised God; they magnified his name (v. 11);78 they prophesied (v. 17). The members of the crowd were bewildered. It had to be a sign, but what did it mean (v. 12)? As in every crowd, there were scoffers (v. 13). Still the inspired speech of the Christians demonstrated the spiritual power present that day. All were prepared to hear Peter's explanation.
Acts: An Exegetical Commentary - Craig S. Keener (Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary)
Luke portrays tongues speaking as Spirit-inspired speech, a fulfillment of the eschatological promise of the prophetic Spirit (Acts 2:17-18).[231] Luke emphasizes tongues because inspired speaking in languages that one has not learned serves as a powerful theological sign and narrative confirmation of empowerment for cross-cultural witness (1:8).[232]
...
Some scholars suggest a hearing miracle rather than the disciples speaking in various languages; even some early interpreters held this view.[379] But some of the suggested background for this position is based on a misinterpretation of ancient texts.[380] More important, this proposal does not match what Luke himself says.[381] Luke reports their speaking "other languages" before mentioning that anyone hears them (2:4), and emphasizes that the Spirit enables them to speak this way; further, the gift recurs later as a supernatural sign with no indication that such hearing took place (10:45-46; 19:6).[382] Moreover, in his work, Luke emphasizes not so much the Spirit producing receptivity in crowds[383] but God working through those who are agents of his Spirit (4:8, 31; 6:3, 10; 10:38; 13:9-11; 21:4, 11).
Early Christian Experience and Theology of "Tongues' - Max Turner (Professor of New Testament at the London School of Theology)
Luke appears to understand the Pentecost phenomenon, which he designates as heterais glossais lalein (to speak with other tongues':2:4), to be xenolalia: that is, the speaking of actual (but unlearned) foreign languages. This is suggested prima facie by the very word glossa (the regular lexeme for human language), especially as it is qualified by hetera ('other). More important, this sense is virtually demanded co-textually, where it is said of the crowd of diaspora pilgrims that they each heard them speaking in their own dialect (te(i) idia (i) dialekto (i) alounton; v. 6; cf. v. 8); 'we hear then telling out, in our own native languages (glossai), the wondrous deeds of God' (v. 11, matching v. 4 in other tongues as the Spirit gave them boldly to declare). This cannot naturally be taken as specifying a miracle of hearing rather than one of speech. It can only mean that the pilgrim characters in the narrative are portrayed by the narrator as astonished that these Galileans were actually boldly extolling God in their own wide variety of native diaspora tongues - and so, perhaps, can barely believe their ears (for Galileans could by no means be expected to have learned such far flung languages). But the narrator in no way suggests his characters are mistaken: that the apostles did not speak so, rather that it was the hearing that was miraculous. We may not seriously doubt that Luke attributes the fundamental charisma in this process to the activity of God in the 120 believers upon whom his Spirit descended. He would hardly be inclined to suggest that the apostolic band merely (say) babbled ecstatically and incomprehensibly, while the Spirit worked, in the as-yet unbelieving diaspora pilgrims, the greater miracle of translation ex nihilo' (or, at least, of being able to interpret the believers inspired but sub-linguistic adoration).
Christianity in the Making - James Dunn (Professor of Divinity, University of Durham)
Most striking for most readers of Luke's account is the report that those thus filled with the Spirit spoke in foreign languages. That they did so speak is the most obvious way to understand what Luke wrote. For obvious reasons some have attempted to diminish the miraculous character of the event thus understood, usually by envisaging a miracle of hearing, rather than of speaking. The inference of 2.13, that some heard only a drunken babble, gives the argument some weight. But so far as Luke himself was concerned, his choice of wording in 2.6 and 11 is hard to construe other than as intended to convey a miraculous speaking in foreign languages, presumably hitherto (and still) unknown to the speakers themselves. The key word, glossa (2.4, 11), means 'tongue', with the secondary meaning, as in English, of language'. The fuller phrase, heterai glossai (2.4), can hardly be understood other than as 'other languages, just as the fuller phrase, he meterai glossai (2.11), can hardly be understood other than as 'our languages’. The second reference, it is true, is recorded as what the crowd hear (2.11), and similarly in 2.6 - "each one heard them speaking in his own native language (dialektos)". But the first reference is Luke's own description of what happened: “they began to speak in other languages (2.4).
The rationale of Luke's understanding of this effect (or manifestation) of the Spirit's coming upon the disciples is presumably to reinforce the preceding point. The Spirit enabled or inspired a speaking which could be understood by a wide range of the crowd (2.8-11), though not all (2.13), a crowd which could be regarded as to some extent representative of all the nations under heaven. In other words, the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was to reinforce and enable a worship (and proclamation?) which was meaningful to a wide range of nationalities.
The Message of Acts - John Stott (Anglican theologian)
What exactly was this third phenomenon which Luke stresses, and as a result of which people heard God's wonders in their vernacular? How does Luke understand glossolalia? We begin our answer negatively.
First, it was not the result of intoxication, of drinking too much gleukos, 'sweet new wine (13, BAGD). Peter is emphatic on this point: These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning (15). As early in the day as that, Haenchen comments, even drunkards and sailers have not yet begun to imbibe. Besides, the Jews fasted during festivals until the morning services were over. Nor, we must add, did the believers experience of the Spirit's fullness seem to them or look to others like intoxication, because they had lost control of their normal mental and physical functions. No, the fruit of the Spirit is 'self-control, not the loss of it. Besides, only 'some made this remark, and though they said it, they do not seem to have meant it. For, Luke says, they made fun of them. It was more a jest than a serious comment.
Secondly, it was not a mistake or a miracle of hearing in contrast to speaking, so that the audience supposed that the believers spoke in other languages when they did not. Some of Luke's statements seem to support this theory: each one heard them speaking in his own language, how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?, and we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues. When, however, Luke writes his own descriptive narrative, he puts the matter beyond dispute: they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them, (4). Glossolalia was indeed a phenomenon of hearing, but only because it was first a phenomenon of speech.
Thirdly, it was not a case of incoherent utterance. Liberal commentators, who begin with a prejudice against miracles, suggest that the 120 believers broke into unintelligible, ecstatic speech, and that Luke (who had visited Corinth with Paul) mistakenly supposed that it was literal languages. Thus Luke got in a muddle and confused two quite different things.
What he thought was languages was in reality inarticulate ecstatic babbling or a ‘flood of unintelligible sounds in no known language. Those of us who have confidence in Luke as a reliable historian, however, let alone as an inspired contributor to the New Testament, conclude that it is not he who is mistaken, but rather his rationalistic interpreters.
Fourthly, and positively, the glossolalia on the Day of Pentecost was a supernatural ability to speak in recognizable languages. Some think that these were Aramaic, Greek and Latin, which would all have been spoken in multi-lingual Galilee; that other languages means languages other than Hebrew (the sacred biblical language which would have seemed appropriate to the occasion); and that the crowd's astonishment was aroused by God's wonders not the languages, by the content not the medium of the communication. This is plausible, and could be said to do justice to Luke's account. On the other hand, his emphasis is more on the linguistic media (4, 6, 8, 11) than on the message (12); it is natural to translate 'other languages as 'other than their mother tongue rather than 'other than Hebrew; the list of fifteen regions in verses 9-11 leads one to expect a wider range of languages than Aramaic, Greek and Latin; and the crowd's astonishment seems due to the fact that the languages, which to the speakers were other (4), i.e. foreign, were yet to the hearers their own (6, 11), indeed their own native language (8), in which they were born (see AV). I conclude, therefore, that the miracle of Pentecost, although it may have included the substance of what the one hundred and twenty spoke (the wonders of God), was primarily the medium of their speech (foreign languages they had never learned).
The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles - R. C. H. Lenski (professor of theology at Capital University)
What this speaking "with different tongues" means is stated in v. 6: "everyone heard them speaking in his own language"; and in v. 11: "we are hearing them telling with our own tongue the great things of God." The disciples spoke in foreign languages that were hitherto unknown to them, in the very languages of the natives of the foreign lands who were presently assembled before them. This is what Luke writes, and the church has never doubted the fact and Luke's veracity and accuracy in reporting that fact.
But serious objection is raised by some commentators who say that Luke's words mean something else, or that he has reported the facts in a wrong way. The miraculous speaking mentioned in 10:46, in 19:6, in I Cor. 12:10, and in 14:2, etc., is referred to. Nearly every objector has his own peculiar view. Some even say that “tongues" means "the language of heaven"! When Luke writes "with different tongues" and later omits "different," the omission is pointed to as proof positive for the fact that there were two entirely different kinds of speaking with tongues. The author has treated the entire subject at length in connection with I Cor. 12:10, and 14:2, etc. Sometimes Luke's sources are questioned. Yet he wrote with full knowledge of the gift of tongues. He had been in Corinth and may well have witnessed this gift in operation. He had Paul at his side who knew all about this gift. We have every reason to think that Luke also met other apostles, certainly Peter, to say nothing of some of the very disciples who here at Pentecost spoke with tongues and still others of the 3,000 who were there to hear that speaking. Still more, the Spirit who bestowed this gift of tongues guided Luke in producing his account.
...
Natives of Jerusalem and pilgrims from afar may have been in the crowd, but Luke has already drawn our attention to the great number of foreign-born Jews who are of special importance in this connection. They were utterly confounded "because they kept hearing them speaking, every single one, in his own language." The imperfect brings out the continuousness of the action. Each foreign-born Jew heard his own foreign language uttered, not once or twice, but for a considerable time. After the plural verb the singular "every single one" individualizes as this is frequently done. Luke means "in his own language" and not "dialect" just as the word used in 1:19 means "language." The list of nations following also excludes the idea that the disciples, whose own Aramaic was the Galilean dialect, were now speaking a number of other Aramaic dialects. Compare v. 11.
