Maximum Number of Low-Latency Wireless Audio Transmitters/Receivers in 3ft Range?

Hi, I'm wondering how many individual wireless transmitters/receivers (stereo or mono is fine) in theory can operate in short range (3 ft. max) next to each other without interfering dramatically (via RF freq. UHF, or any other freq. or means that would be wireless). Prefer a solution with minimal latency (under 13 milliseconds), relatively low cost, sacrifice of signal quality acceptable.(cheapest, low quality).

Task- to replace 3ft. 1/4" jack aux. cables with 1/4" jack wireless transmitters/receivers. As many as possible, unrelated to eachother, working next to each-other.

NOTE: A constructed Multi Channel Box would be acceptable at the receiving end, but would be unacceptable at the transmitting ends because transmitters will need to be spread out each about 1 ft. apart from each other

Ryan, what's the application? Wireless links are usually used to avoid the hassle and expense of long cable runs. A 1m audio cable is cheap, readily accessible, cheap, low-noise, cheap, virtually immune to cross-talk, cheap, and easy to design for. Did I also mention it was cheap?

Ryan this would depend on a lot of things....type of encoding (eg bluetooth, DECT etc).  I don't think you could buy something like this off the shelf.  Your 1/4" jacks would not have power on them so you'd be looking at separate power sources for RX and Tx.But my main question is, why on earth would you want to do this?  If your Tx and Rx were 3 KM apart, fine, but 3 feet?  If there is an isolation issue then you could look at using fibre optics, there are some converters for that available, whether they'd do what you want I'm not sure...

If you just need electrical isolation, you could use audio transformers.If just one audio channel was enough, you could use inductive coupling. Look up telecoils for hearing aids for details.

You can buy them off the shelf with support of upto 4 simultaneous, relatively cheap. I need four times the amount, or at least double(8 total) would be plenty helpful, but hopefully about 16 to function next to each other if possible. (I know its a long stretch, but kinda necessary for me to attempt it at this stage, keep reading...) 
The Application = Electronic Drums.The Purpose: to clear up the mess of so many cables in one confined space-roughly 50 cables, all running seperate directions and wrapping around each other. If I could get the 16 problem children out of the way, the remaining 35 snake  cables can bulk together with zip-ties. But as it stands, the same 16 are always weaving through the others and getting caught up eventually ...
Anyway, It's always ok at first when I get it all straightened out, but given a little time and love it becomes a very ugly rats nest after involving cables to headphones, midi cables to and from laptop interface, Auxiliary in from multiple sources, adding other musicians instruments in the mixer, adding a second drum module with midi, adding any additional drum pads, adding a signal out to the sound system/monitor and finally the video cables to the kit-mounted lcd for drum lessons on youtube and purchased media for the kids to learn. (This is not even describing the headache I could avoid when trying to transport this very light-weight and compact device anywhere).
I understand the application is most commonly for long range wire replacements, but to be honest if these were all  just a little-bit further spread out it would eliminate the issue being that the cables would not tangle and interfere with one another with some more space in between.
I can relate to what you guys are saying and your stand-pointe. Prior to experiencing this for myself I would have also had a tough time imagining why this is even a topic. I couldn't have possibly grasped the magnitude of frustration so many cables is causing. So i get it why people balk at this.Believe me, When I purchased the kit i imagined using the cheap (free) wired apparatus "Snake" Cable without the need for what I'm requesting a solution for. I have fought this hard for over a year. I did not even want to explore such an impractical solution, but after so many hours spent trying to keep the area manageable, I'm reduced to leaning on new technology for help. But I'm afraid it seems technology has not advanced quite enough for my requirements, at least not within my capabilities, so I ask you all for your professional expertise.  Anyway, that's quite enough with the background and reasoning. Hopefully we can get to the topic on the surface (whether this can be done or not, and if so, what will be required & if not, ok but then why not so I can move on to something else ...
So far I've found that bluetooth has a ginormous  lag, coming in at over 40 milliseconds (the standard needed is below 12ms latency.
RF or UHF lag is not significant, but seems to have an issue with interference when adding multiples.
One Engineer found a way to do it this and it's a huge success with the elevated demands from e-drummers. He's making a killing and I can't pay for his secret yet. Need to wait until this one has been around longer so I can afford it. So if you're onboard please lets keep it going (even with pessimism, but if you're not then I appreciate your time so far and wish me luck as we part ways 

One practical option for adding a wireless audio capability to your home theater setup is the Atlantic Technology WA-60 Wireless Audio Transmitter/Receiver System.The system comes with two components: A transmitter and a receiver. The transmitter is equipped with a set of RCA-type analog stereo audio inputs, while the receiver is equipped with a set of analog stereo outputs.